2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

[Rajendra]

phase":"EVALUATION","proposal":true,"finished":false

[amannu]

Same mine: "phase":"EVALUATION","proposal":true,"finished":false

phase":"EVALUATION","proposal":true,"finished":false

[Cla]

The last time it took longer to change. I think it started to change around 2 pm

Same mine: "phase":"EVALUATION","proposal":true,"finished":false

phase":"EVALUATION","proposal":true,"finished":false

[dreamline]

The last time it took longer to change. I think it started to change around 2 pm

Same mine: "phase":"EVALUATION","proposal":true,"finished":false

phase":"EVALUATION","proposal":true,"finished":false

Cla, are you still in Evaluation now?

[Cla]

I changed to ranking on Tuesday..
I see a lot of people in evaluation in here, so may be it is like last year.. it makes sense that it takes longer for the winners to change to ranking, as more info about the project has to be uploaded

The last time it took longer to change. I think it started to change around 2 pm

Same mine: "phase":"EVALUATION","proposal":true,"finished":false

Cla, are you still in Evaluation now?

[cukovic]

Winners should be ranked as well, but what is the last phase of the guys under threshold 70? Do they remain in evaluation (forever) ?

[kassiek]

Winners should be ranked as well, but what is the last phase of the guys under threshold 70? Do they remain in evaluation (forever) ?

We can't answer this with 100% certainty. There is no way of telling if those people are or aren't in ranking either as it is an out of date link. Everything here is speculation with a dash of wishful thinking.

[danGFSOC]

I agree with you (although I am in social science and humanities). The problem I have constantly faced (re)writing applications is to balance clarity/simplicity with accuracy in giving details (in particular when you deal with scientific discussion in your field or topic). I feel this time I gave a clearer big picture of the issue, which would have been comprehensible to everyone. The structure of the project is simple, clear and very easy to follow, with info on the fundamental points very easily to find... however, I feel that this can also be turned into a weakness if the evaluators think that the project is not enough "smart" and "sophisticated". For example with the state of the art, sometimes it is very difficult to reconstruct what have been said (and not) on a specific topic in just 10 lines without risking to lose the attention of the (no expert) evaluator already at page 1.

In any case, after last year comments and having read evaluations from other successful projects, I think sometimes the real reason you get or don't get funded it is not "codified" in particular when you get a high score. Sometimes an element of the project is so convincing (the topic, the supervisor, the methodology, the social importance of the problem the project deals with, the network you build...) that all other elements become less relevant. So even if you did not give details, for example, on dissemination (I read evaluations with this comment!) you get the fellowship because the social problem is so relevant that this compensates the weakness. And sometimes the accuracy in which you answered to all the points as asked in the guide does not compensate the fact that you didn't gave a "final reason" supporting the relevance of your project for the EU. So, it is very complicated. The only thing that I understand is that you need to know how to write it and, yes, you need luck.

Hi guys!

It appears quite clear that what is mentioned on the web link (ranking/evaluation etc.) doesn't mean shit.
Don't try to make any correlation or assumption as you can easily imagine that the European Commission has tons of shields to avoid this kind of obvious leaks. In other words, please don't flood, it is very annoying scrolling pages and pages of wild-guess. Waiting for official announcements still is the most reliable information you will get.

I read with a particular attention what you guys discussed regarding the weight of your CV in the evaluation. From my experience and lots of discussion with PIs in my field (plant biology), either with ridiculous h-index or not:

- yes, a good CV makes it look better
- yes, a "less-good" CV has to be compensated by a really good project, with well thought-through experiments, and only little pitfalls.
- yes, a good CV combined with a really good project can still be rejected, as the degree of randomness is just enormous.
- proposal writing is all about keywords and key sentences.

Don't forget that evaluators often review 10-20 proposals within 3 weeks to give a final note. That said, do not assume that every subtleties you wrote in your proposal will be considered as is. You can abuse of bold font to emphasize what is really important. It makes the proposal clearer. Overall, the evaluators need to find essential information and keywords really easily. Proposals fail if the presentation is tedious (off course there are always exceptions).
I don't know whether you took a look to the list of reviewers from last years, but Marie Curie proposals are not evaluated, at least in my field or related topics, by real experts with a PI activity. This makes my point even stronger: if you do not take his/her hand, he/she will destroy your proposal.

[evolved]

So I got the list of 7 people that have reported being in Evaluation after Tuesday:

amannu
Rajendra
xman25
Bob_0405
ATBGF2017
Starryeyed
MSCA-ENV

Please let us know if your status changes.

[MSCA-ENV]

Hi evolved,

I am still in Evaluation. I will let you all know if this change today, or later (that according to the applicants that got RANKING after the previous maintenance, I guess it should happen today after 1pm)

So I got the list of 6 people that have reported being in Evaluation after Tuesday:

amannu
Rajendra
xman25
Bob_0405
ATBGF2017
Starryeyed

Please let us know if your status changes.