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

Locked
MSCA_SOC_2019
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:17 pm

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

Post by MSCA_SOC_2019 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:51 pm

MC2020 wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:40 pm
megasphaera wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:32 pm
MSCA_SOC_2019 wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:37 pm


Maybe it's better not to mention it's a resubmission? I guess it is not mandatory anyway...
I think is mandatory to declare a resubmission, no?
Yes I think so
Indeed

MSCA_CHEM_2019
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:58 pm

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

Post by MSCA_CHEM_2019 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:22 pm

Does someone think about the probability of status change this week?

omari
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:30 am

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

Post by omari » Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:38 am

Robrad30 wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:45 am

On a side note, this is my 1st application too. What category are you applying to and where are you hoping to move to if you get it? Where are you moving from?
Thanks for explaining the whole status thing. I agree with you, I would just wait for the official results without speculating the meaning of any of the status changes, if any.

I applied for a Standard EU grant under engineering and hoping to move to Barcelona, Spain from Canada "fingers crossed" :D

SimpaLif
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:32 pm

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

Post by SimpaLif » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:32 am

megasphaera wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:32 pm
MSCA_SOC_2019 wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:37 pm
MSCA_SOC_2019 wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:31 pm
I hope you are wrong :lol:
Last year I got 89!
We will see in 2 weeks :roll:
Maybe it's better not to mention it's a resubmission? I guess it is not mandatory anyway...
I think is mandatory to declare a resubmission, no?
It is mandatory do declare that you resubmit again (similar proposal under the same h2020 call).
I was not sure sure about this but International office from my host university checked my application and asked me to enter ID of the previous submission in application form.

hopefulacademic
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:09 pm

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

Post by hopefulacademic » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:44 am

ENV2021 wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:30 pm
Hi there,
a friend of mine is an MC evaluator and I would like to share with you what he explained to me about the evaluation process.
Three evaluators per proposal plus a chair that supervises the process. Each evaluator may evaluate a few proposals (10-15).
Each evaluator produces a report individually without sharing his comments; only when the three evaluators have submitted their reports it starts a consensus phase when the evaluators discuss their comments about the proposal. When they reach a consensus, and only then, they propose the score, always under the supervision of the chair. They are not allowed to see the evaluation report of the previous submitted proposal (if any) nor to know the old score, actually, this report remains undisclosed; the chair may ask the evaluators to rediscuss specific points if he considers it necessary.
Evaluators have to follow a specific point list and that is why it is so important to fill out the proposal including each and every point specified in the guideline, being specific, concrete. And you have to say the right things where they are expected to be in the proposal, not elsewhere in the text. If you state something in the "excellence" part that should have been stated in the "impact" part, well...that is your fault.
Regarding the CV, effectively the number of papers doesn't care, as it said in the guideline you may be penalised only if according to your research career you have not produced enough; evaluators check your CV to have an idea of what you have done before, especially to determine if your training programme is appropriate and if you effectively are going to learn something new which is the most important thing in this fellowship, besides project excellence. He also told me that many of the projects he reviewed were excellent but even in this case if you fail addressing all and each point they have to start to decrease the score, and few tenths of a point means getting or not the fellowship or even getting a bad score.
Said that..of course, subjectivity is impossible to remove but at least I think this is the most well-designed evaluation process I know.
Yeah, that is also what a reviewer told me. It's really a list that they have to tick off. So while your proposal may be really good, the ticking off might get you below the cutoff line. The reviewers have to do quite a lot of proposals and they don't have a lot of time. On the other hand you get paid to review so if you don't get the grant, you might want to become a reviewer, at least you get paid for that.

Kenniz
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:03 pm

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

Post by Kenniz » Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:08 am

maybe we get some updates this week :D
i am still surprised nothing happened last week, as it did every year before that.

megasphaera
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:55 pm

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

Post by megasphaera » Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:38 am

hopefulacademic wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:44 am
ENV2021 wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:30 pm
Hi there,
a friend of mine is an MC evaluator and I would like to share with you what he explained to me about the evaluation process.
Three evaluators per proposal plus a chair that supervises the process. Each evaluator may evaluate a few proposals (10-15).
Each evaluator produces a report individually without sharing his comments; only when the three evaluators have submitted their reports it starts a consensus phase when the evaluators discuss their comments about the proposal. When they reach a consensus, and only then, they propose the score, always under the supervision of the chair. They are not allowed to see the evaluation report of the previous submitted proposal (if any) nor to know the old score, actually, this report remains undisclosed; the chair may ask the evaluators to rediscuss specific points if he considers it necessary.
Evaluators have to follow a specific point list and that is why it is so important to fill out the proposal including each and every point specified in the guideline, being specific, concrete. And you have to say the right things where they are expected to be in the proposal, not elsewhere in the text. If you state something in the "excellence" part that should have been stated in the "impact" part, well...that is your fault.
Regarding the CV, effectively the number of papers doesn't care, as it said in the guideline you may be penalised only if according to your research career you have not produced enough; evaluators check your CV to have an idea of what you have done before, especially to determine if your training programme is appropriate and if you effectively are going to learn something new which is the most important thing in this fellowship, besides project excellence. He also told me that many of the projects he reviewed were excellent but even in this case if you fail addressing all and each point they have to start to decrease the score, and few tenths of a point means getting or not the fellowship or even getting a bad score.
Said that..of course, subjectivity is impossible to remove but at least I think this is the most well-designed evaluation process I know.
Yeah, that is also what a reviewer told me. It's really a list that they have to tick off. So while your proposal may be really good, the ticking off might get you below the cutoff line. The reviewers have to do quite a lot of proposals and they don't have a lot of time. On the other hand you get paid to review so if you don't get the grant, you might want to become a reviewer, at least you get paid for that.
OK, but are we talking about the list at the end of the manual for evaluators? In my case comments from last year were mainly related to technical aspect of the project.
In excellence I had lots of comments questioning the the methodology. One comment about not having planned a grant writing workshop (despite having one). Also I had a comment on my gender aspect; they say that I did not explained well how to resolve gender aspect. Turns out the project was on fecking female breast cancer. Men can also get breast cancer but it's only a very small percentage.

In excellence i had only comments questioning the fact that I did not highlighted the host participation in training of some skills like presentation and so on (despite having said that the host was giving seminars and workshop on these skills and the communication team would have helped me with dissemination). In implementation I only had comments on the feasibility of the proposal.

In my case I think the list was only followed partially: they basically disliked the proposal and though was not feasible. So I think that if they don't like or understand the project, they are going to use the list as they want.

Anyway, there are a lot of reviewers so it really depends.

IF ST LIF
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:10 pm

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

Post by IF ST LIF » Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:05 am

megasphaera wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:38 am
hopefulacademic wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:44 am
ENV2021 wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:30 pm
Hi there,
a friend of mine is an MC evaluator and I would like to share with you what he explained to me about the evaluation process.
Three evaluators per proposal plus a chair that supervises the process. Each evaluator may evaluate a few proposals (10-15).
Each evaluator produces a report individually without sharing his comments; only when the three evaluators have submitted their reports it starts a consensus phase when the evaluators discuss their comments about the proposal. When they reach a consensus, and only then, they propose the score, always under the supervision of the chair. They are not allowed to see the evaluation report of the previous submitted proposal (if any) nor to know the old score, actually, this report remains undisclosed; the chair may ask the evaluators to rediscuss specific points if he considers it necessary.
Evaluators have to follow a specific point list and that is why it is so important to fill out the proposal including each and every point specified in the guideline, being specific, concrete. And you have to say the right things where they are expected to be in the proposal, not elsewhere in the text. If you state something in the "excellence" part that should have been stated in the "impact" part, well...that is your fault.
Regarding the CV, effectively the number of papers doesn't care, as it said in the guideline you may be penalised only if according to your research career you have not produced enough; evaluators check your CV to have an idea of what you have done before, especially to determine if your training programme is appropriate and if you effectively are going to learn something new which is the most important thing in this fellowship, besides project excellence. He also told me that many of the projects he reviewed were excellent but even in this case if you fail addressing all and each point they have to start to decrease the score, and few tenths of a point means getting or not the fellowship or even getting a bad score.
Said that..of course, subjectivity is impossible to remove but at least I think this is the most well-designed evaluation process I know.
Yeah, that is also what a reviewer told me. It's really a list that they have to tick off. So while your proposal may be really good, the ticking off might get you below the cutoff line. The reviewers have to do quite a lot of proposals and they don't have a lot of time. On the other hand you get paid to review so if you don't get the grant, you might want to become a reviewer, at least you get paid for that.
OK, but are we talking about the list at the end of the manual for evaluators? In my case comments from last year were mainly related to technical aspect of the project.
In excellence I had lots of comments questioning the the methodology. One comment about not having planned a grant writing workshop (despite having one). Also I had a comment on my gender aspect; they say that I did not explained well how to resolve gender aspect. Turns out the project was on fecking female breast cancer. Men can also get breast cancer but it's only a very small percentage.

In excellence i had only comments questioning the fact that I did not highlighted the host participation in training of some skills like presentation and so on (despite having said that the host was giving seminars and workshop on these skills and the communication team would have helped me with dissemination). In implementation I only had comments on the feasibility of the proposal.

In my case I think the list was only followed partially: they basically disliked the proposal and though was not feasible. So I think that if they don't like or understand the project, they are going to use the list as they want.

Anyway, there are a lot of reviewers so it really depends.
And that's the lottery of every year with the reviews! Good luck to everyone!

megasphaera
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:55 pm

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

Post by megasphaera » Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:46 am

IF ST LIF wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:05 am
megasphaera wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:38 am
hopefulacademic wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:44 am


Yeah, that is also what a reviewer told me. It's really a list that they have to tick off. So while your proposal may be really good, the ticking off might get you below the cutoff line. The reviewers have to do quite a lot of proposals and they don't have a lot of time. On the other hand you get paid to review so if you don't get the grant, you might want to become a reviewer, at least you get paid for that.
OK, but are we talking about the list at the end of the manual for evaluators? In my case comments from last year were mainly related to technical aspect of the project.
In excellence I had lots of comments questioning the the methodology. One comment about not having planned a grant writing workshop (despite having one). Also I had a comment on my gender aspect; they say that I did not explained well how to resolve gender aspect. Turns out the project was on fecking female breast cancer. Men can also get breast cancer but it's only a very small percentage.

In excellence i had only comments questioning the fact that I did not highlighted the host participation in training of some skills like presentation and so on (despite having said that the host was giving seminars and workshop on these skills and the communication team would have helped me with dissemination). In implementation I only had comments on the feasibility of the proposal.

In my case I think the list was only followed partially: they basically disliked the proposal and though was not feasible. So I think that if they don't like or understand the project, they are going to use the list as they want.

Anyway, there are a lot of reviewers so it really depends.
And that's the lottery of every year with the reviews! Good luck to everyone!
Yep that is point. I am reiterating this because last year I tought "oh my application has all the elements they want, I will get it with a high score! “ I was too naive and I didnt think about all the problems my project had, on the technical side. I was too focused on making my proposal perfect on all the aspects, without paying attention on carefully revising the methodology; this is reflected in the final evaluation.

SimpaLif
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:32 pm

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

Post by SimpaLif » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:04 pm

Link doesn't work.

"Your action 'cached project details' failed. Please try again later or inform the service desk in case the problem persists."

Locked