Talk Academia

Hello everyone, I'm new in the forum and I know this topic has been mentioned in another thread but I think it deserves its own space so I start this. If the admins think it's not the case, please remove the thread and instruct me otherwise.

Background: I sent my first IF submission in 2014, ended up in the waiting list, re-applied and got the grant. I just finished it in January.
Two years ago I applied for a Global fellowship. I was rejected with 87.40%: the first part did me in and I agreed with the reviews; parts 2 and 3 were scored 4.80 and 4.90.
By this, if I may, I'd like to make a point that I know how to write an MC proposal. I will add that I am totally fine with being rejected, whether I agree with the comments or not, but certainly when the comments make sense, even if I don't agree with them.

Surprise this year: I was rejected with 81.80% and very weird comments. Now what do I mean by weird? I guess it's subtle. I can elaborate on this but to keep this short, I'm writing this to see if this resonates with other people. I know for a fact that other two people in different panels had this impression. It's unbelievable. In the past years I though the evaluation process was very good. What did they mess up this time?

Sincerely yours,
twice rejected postdoc in Brussels

Hey!
Sorry you were rejected (but congratulations on previously being accepted!)
Can you elaborate on what you mean by a weird comment?

https://hsrm.academia.edu/Valutazionige ... rieActions
Found something else also.

I had a quick look at those proposals and while it may seem a significant fall in points, I think that it is not unjustified. It seems that weaknesses from the 2017 proposal were not addressed enough in the 2018 proposal and hence the reviewers must have concluded that if the applicant cannot address these issues, the score should go down. Also, 76% is already a low score in itself. But to know for sure, we should see the full proposal

hopefulacademic wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:30 pm

I had a quick look at those proposals and while it may seem a significant fall in points, I think that it is not unjustified. It seems that weaknesses from the 2017 proposal were not addressed enough in the 2018 proposal and hence the reviewers must have concluded that if the applicant cannot address these issues, the score should go down. Also, 76% is already a low score in itself. But to know for sure, we should see the full proposal

I agree, it’s hard to judge an evaluation report without the proposal, unless there is some internal contradiction in the report.

Also: with a score of <80%, it might make sense to choose a new host that will help in the application. In no way, I would have been able to create a good application without my host's help.

I am wondering which universities have the capacity at all?

Look on Twitter for Universities that are offering workshops on MSCA. These universities understand the value to be gained by getting MSCA fellows and they will help you. Flying you over for a few days does not cost that much so they see it as a good investment. Don't apply if your host is not supporting you enough. And find a good University that fits your research project.

It is seems also that the experience/knowledge from other eu funded projects proved more of a handicap. Even some suggestions followed on the basis of NCP review were negatively evaluated.

Mojca wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:16 pm

It is seems also that the experience/knowledge from other eu funded projects proved more of a handicap. Even some suggestions followed on the basis of NCP review were negatively evaluated.

Where did you get this information?