2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)

[Shapovalov]

My fault I did not know about the statement they can penalise if you think it's not enough giving researcher career. But Let me ask you: is there any official number of paper you should have after your PhD or a postdoc?
Msca does not give specific guidelines on that. So I think is still stupid to leave the comment "researcher has not enough paper according to its career" .

As I told you, I know people with the same exact commentary and they still got a high score in excellence and got the fellowship. And people with nature paper that did not get it. So I still think publication has no impact on outcome because there is no consensus on the number of paper you should have after a PhD or postdoc.
I also think that in 2020 we should try to move away from the publication number thing. These are the stuff that make academia toxic

Really not sure what you are trying to say with the part I bolded.
Of course, your publications are not the sole factor. They are a factor, you can't dismiss that.

Exchange publications with any other criteria and see if your point still makes sense to you. For example,
"I know proposals with a good TOK that didn't get the grant, and I also know people who wrote a very average TOK and still got the grant. So, I still think that TOK has no impact on the outcome because there is no consensus on how much knowledge should be transferred".
Doesn't make any sense does it?
You can get away with an average TOK (or any other section), if everything else compensates for it. But if you just don't write that section, or do a terrible job at explaining it, that could be enough for a rejection.

The exact same point holds for your list of publications (both number and which journals).



Of course there is no official number that you should have. Even with the same amount of experience, the expectation is very different. Different fields have different definitions of good. And, yes, it is a subjective thing. The entire evaluation process is subjective. As it has to be.

[megasphaera]

My fault I did not know about the statement they can penalise if you think it's not enough giving researcher career. But Let me ask you: is there any official number of paper you should have after your PhD or a postdoc?
Msca does not give specific guidelines on that. So I think is still stupid to leave the comment "researcher has not enough paper according to its career" .

As I told you, I know people with the same exact commentary and they still got a high score in excellence and got the fellowship. And people with nature paper that did not get it. So I still think publication has no impact on outcome because there is no consensus on the number of paper you should have after a PhD or postdoc.
I also think that in 2020 we should try to move away from the publication number thing. These are the stuff that make academia toxic

Really not sure what you are trying to say with the part I bolded.
Of course, your publications are not the sole factor. They are a factor, you can't dismiss that.

Exchange publications with any other criteria and see if your point still makes sense to you. For example,
"I know proposals with a good TOK that didn't get the grant, and I also know people who wrote a very average TOK and still got the grant. So, I still think that TOK has no impact on the outcome because there is no consensus on how much knowledge should be transferred".
Doesn't make any sense does it?
You can get away with an average TOK (or any other section), if everything else compensates for it. But if you just don't write that section, or do a terrible job at explaining it, that could be enough for a rejection.

The exact same point holds for your list of publications (both number and which journals).



Of course there is no official number that you should have. Even with the same amount of experience, the expectation is very different. Different fields have different definitions of good. And, yes, it is a subjective thing. The entire evaluation process is subjective. As it has to be.

What you are saying make no sense my friend:
Did I say that you should not put the amount of paper that you published in the proposal? What I meant in answering to the person pointing the reviewers comment is that number of paper has no impact. Apparently I was wrong because the guidelines says that they can penalise it if they think is not enough.
Regarding the part in bold: I know people with very few papers that got the comment about not having enough paper; however they still got a very high score and got the fellowship.

And also: Of course if you don't put a section that's enough for a rejection.

[MSCA_CHEM_2019]

Unfortunately, an evaluation process is very subjective and depends on the eyes that look at it. Therefore, in this case there is a consensus phase where different evaluators can exchange their opinions.

[SOC-2018]

I have another project funded under Horizon 2020. The continuous reporting is in golden. However, the project management & grant preparation and the periodic reporting are in blue. I don't know what the coloring means for MSCA.

Here is the key to the mystery of colors:

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding/di ... l+Concepts

[Kenniz]

I have another project funded under Horizon 2020. The continuous reporting is in golden. However, the project management & grant preparation and the periodic reporting are in blue. I don't know what the coloring means for MSCA.

Here is the key to the mystery of colors:

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding/di ... l+Concepts

thanks for the update. so basically you had to edit something or answer something? could you give a general idea of what it was?

[MSCA_CHEM_2019]

I have another project funded under Horizon 2020. The continuous reporting is in golden. However, the project management & grant preparation and the periodic reporting are in blue. I don't know what the coloring means for MSCA.

Here is the key to the mystery of colors:

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding/di ... l+Concepts

Had you answered ethical requerimients? Maybe, it is something related with this.

[AdinaBabesh]

Very good, you answered to your question

I have another project funded under Horizon 2020. The continuous reporting is in golden. However, the project management & grant preparation and the periodic reporting are in blue. I don't know what the coloring means for MSCA.

Here is the key to the mystery of colors:

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding/di ... l+Concepts

[Amar]

I have another project funded under Horizon 2020. The continuous reporting is in golden. However, the project management & grant preparation and the periodic reporting are in blue. I don't know what the coloring means for MSCA.

Here is the key to the mystery of colors:

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding/di ... l+Concepts

The funniest thing that i can even find neither "my project" menu nor "the project management &grant preparation".

[Confusedone]

Do we any clarification about status Final vs something else. Mine is status Final

[AdinaBabesh]

I think you need to go to the portal Funding & Tenders, to access My proposal on the screen left, and there you can access this. If you don't have another project running My Project menu is not yet configured on your page. To access Project Management & grant preparation click on Actions - Follow up (screen right).

I have another project funded under Horizon 2020. The continuous reporting is in golden. However, the project management & grant preparation and the periodic reporting are in blue. I don't know what the coloring means for MSCA.

Here is the key to the mystery of colors:

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding/di ... l+Concepts

The funniest thing that i can even find neither "my project" menu nor "the project management &grant preparation".