Weird reviews
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:13 pm
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
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