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

[Dajm]

True, but this below is priceless. Like - sorry, what?

weakness: The proposed measures for dissemination among peers in the form of journal articles are not sufficiently explicit: this is to do with the prospective topical areas and specificity, the prospective journals, and the number of planned outputs.

This is hilarious/sad. Can we use this as an example in the letter to EC?

Speaking about contradictory comments, take a look at what I have received! :

Strength: It is appropriate and positive that the researcher intends to publish four articles in high ranked academic journals as part of the dissemination of the research results. It is also very promising that the researcher would participate in four international conferences.

weakness: The proposed measures for dissemination among peers in the form of journal articles are not sufficiently explicit: this is to do with the prospective topical areas and specificity, the prospective journals, and the number of planned outputs.

Strength: Suitably, there would be planning of two public engagement seminars which would facilitate the communication of the project to organizations interested in European Cultural policy through.
A set of generally appropriate tools and measures to communicate the project to a non-specialist audience is discussed sufficiently, and this includes social media tools, local press communications, and public workshops.

weakness: Except for the two planned public seminars, the measures for the dissemination of the project to the general public are insufficiently specified and remain too generic.

There is some difference between the statements though.
The second one is mediated by "Except for the two planned public seminars"... maybe they mean those are sufficient in themselves but not in terms of the general project.

[SOC-2018]

it is hilarious! I feel so sorry for myself putting that much time and effort into my proposal!

Strength: The adopted solutions for managing the potential risks of the action are satisfactorily described.

weakness(es):
1. The domain and theme of the research represent the biggest risk, the anticipation of which is insufficiently considered by the researcher.
2. Although two risks are mentioned and proposed solutions listed, there is insufficient information on the risk that the researcher would be exposed to with respect to the potential censorship.
3. The risk assessment does not sufficiently consider the political and cultural sensitivities that may hinder the interviewees' ability or willingness to participate in the project, and give a sufficiently complete and accurate account of the situation.


OK! I got it! Maybe I have not fully considered the potential risks in detail, but is it really necessary to give three comments (with exactly the same content but different wording) to remind me of them?????!

[Perserker]

What was he overall success-rate?

[CAR-2018]

I have added the following users to the group for co-authoring the article:
rkrkochi
hopefulacademic
buk

You should see a thread in the "Horizon 2020" forum here on the site (Dajm also linked to it earlier)

Please add me, thanks.

[jurmeister]

I found out my proposal got on the reserve list. Now, I heard that before from an other grant, and that usually means no grant. However, I just checked the cut-off score of my group, and found out it is presicely equal to the score of my proposal! So, I'm among the few that still might or might not get it. ahhh, after months of waiting, I still don't know for sure...

[Paulish]

Is it me or are the reserve lists especially long this year? 114 in SOC was mentioned here! Is that normal, and if not, does anyone know why this is?

Not to alarm anybody, but in the acceptance letter there was a separate paragraph explicitly addressing hard Brexit and how it may make the grants no longer valid... the long waiting lists could be a direct reflection of that possibility.

[sevenrain]

Got my results back, 85.4% (4.4/4.3/3.9), it being a re-submission from last year. A few head scratchers here, my Impact decreased from 4.5 to 4.3. The most glaring part were the contradictions in the Strengths of the Excellence versus the Weakness in the Impact, relative to my host institution and its learning/research environment.

Excellence - Strengths
- The appropriateness of the research environment of the host institution , which is world-leading in archaeology, for the proposed project is well-established.
-The proposal clearly identifies the ways in which the researcher can contribute knowledge and skills to the host institution.
- The proposal establishes the supervisor's research expertise and experience in supervising doctoral and postdoctoral projects.
- There is clearly a well-established team working in cognate areas within the host institution. The proposal adequately addresses the ways in which the researcher would be integrated into the wider learning environment of the host institution. There is also evidence that the researcher is already publishing alongside faculty members.

Excellence - Weakness
-The proposal does not explain training opportunities made available at the host institution sufficiently clearly and articulately

Impact - Weakness
- The researcher was previously based at the host institution for a PhD, and the proposal does not present the added value for the researcher's career trajectory of being based at the host institution during the fellowship sufficiently convincingly.

I'm thinking of pursuing an evaluation review relative to these. Any thoughts?

[IF ST LIF]

Is it me or are the reserve lists especially long this year? 114 in SOC was mentioned here! Is that normal, and if not, does anyone know why this is?

Not to alarm anybody, but in the acceptance letter there was a separate paragraph explicitly addressing hard Brexit and how it may make the grants no longer valid... the long waiting lists could be a direct reflection of that possibility.

Is that for real? lol

[Dajm]

Hey sevenrain. Sorry this happened to you as well. I don't think there is a real possibility of re-evaluation but some of us in a similar position are putting together a letter of complaint re: the review process. Please, let me know if you would be interested in joining. x

Got my results back, 85.4% (4.4/4.3/3.9), it being a re-submission from last year. A few head scratchers here, my Impact decreased from 4.5 to 4.3. The most glaring part were the contradictions in the Strengths of the Excellence versus the Weakness in the Impact, relative to my host institution and its learning/research environment.

Excellence - Strengths
- The appropriateness of the research environment of the host institution , which is world-leading in archaeology, for the proposed project is well-established.
-The proposal clearly identifies the ways in which the researcher can contribute knowledge and skills to the host institution.
- The proposal establishes the supervisor's research expertise and experience in supervising doctoral and postdoctoral projects.
- There is clearly a well-established team working in cognate areas within the host institution. The proposal adequately addresses the ways in which the researcher would be integrated into the wider learning environment of the host institution. There is also evidence that the researcher is already publishing alongside faculty members.

Excellence - Weakness
-The proposal does not explain training opportunities made available at the host institution sufficiently clearly and articulately

Impact - Weakness
- The researcher was previously based at the host institution for a PhD, and the proposal does not present the added value for the researcher's career trajectory of being based at the host institution during the fellowship sufficiently convincingly.

I'm thinking of pursuing an evaluation review relative to these. Any thoughts?

[Dajm]

This has been discussed earlier in the thread, and it looks like unfortunately, instead of discussing points of criticism as they are instructed to, the reviewers are merely cut-and-pasting individual comments to save time.

it is hilarious! I feel so sorry for myself putting that much time and effort into my proposal!

Strength: The adopted solutions for managing the potential risks of the action are satisfactorily described.

weakness(es):
1. The domain and theme of the research represent the biggest risk, the anticipation of which is insufficiently considered by the researcher.
2. Although two risks are mentioned and proposed solutions listed, there is insufficient information on the risk that the researcher would be exposed to with respect to the potential censorship.
3. The risk assessment does not sufficiently consider the political and cultural sensitivities that may hinder the interviewees' ability or willingness to participate in the project, and give a sufficiently complete and accurate account of the situation.


OK! I got it! Maybe I have not fully considered the potential risks in detail, but is it really necessary to give three comments (with exactly the same content but different wording) to remind me of them?????!