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

[Bloom]

Was asleep and woke up and stupidly checked my email. Got rejected (ST-SOC) with 78% which is a 10% drop from last year. That means I don't even have a seal of excellence so it has all been for nothing. This is quite a blow and I don't really know how to go on from here. On to the comments (listing scores and weaknesses):
excellence 3,80, previous 4,30

- It is not entirely clear from the application how novel is the project compared to the researcher’s own previous creative and research experience. New improvements are unclearly presented.
- The state-of-the-art review does not provide sufficient detail on the relation between this research and other research in the field.
- It is not well specified what forms would be used to transfer applicant expertise to the host institution.
- The courses the applicant would be taking at the host institution are inadequately specified. - It is not entirely clear how the supervisor's expertise will be transferred to the applicant.
impact 4,00, previous 4,40
- The plan for academic publications resulting from the project is not sufficiently explored. The proposed dissemination activities for a 24- month research projects are limited in scope. The exact details of journal articles or monograph publications the researcher aims presenting, lack sufficient details.
- Communication to policy makers and especially to relevant industry stakeholders, significant for the project, are inadequately planned.
- The plans to communicate the results to industry and artistic communities outside the country of research are insufficiently developed.
implementation 4,00, previous 4,70
- Dissemination activities are not clearly allocated in the work plan and related time and resources are insufficiently justified - The work packages, and in particular deliverables and milestones are not described in a detailed way.

I worked hard on improving my application from last year and worked on teh weaknesses there only to see this big list of weaknesses. A lot of them seem bogus reasons to subtract points: what courses would I be taking, academic outputs not sufficiently specified (I gave journal and conference titles though), WP's: in the last proposal they specifically asked less WPs which I did and specified in quite big detail.

I am sorry and I understand you... the same for me, I am in Soc too and I really dont know how the evaluator can do this kind of evaluation... for me this action is not credible at all, it is all a lottery

[sezza89]

I have a lot to say, but let me just say this about the review comments (in which it was clear that at least one reviewer had taken against my proposal, causing a significant drop in the score when all the elements they criticised were better than last year):

• They said that I did not address gender elements
  I did address gender elements, in multiple places
  Also, I am actually a gender scholar and this is explicitly stated in my proposal
  The word gender appears six times in my proposal
  My proposal has an aim of helping some areas be better with regard to gender relations

I agree with anyone who thinks that this is a lottery. I cannot find any other way to describe it. But I am less sad now I have read the comments because they are so egregious.

The longer I’m in academic the more I realise that it is totally a lottery. After a certain point skill, experience and publications don’t mean anything. I got a worse score this year than last even though the proposal was better. They didn’t even pick apart anything to do with my project, just the suitability of the institution (which was the same in last years application and nothing was said then).
Oh well, my project has been funded elsewhere in the meantime.

[AdinaBabesh]

Thank you, 892, CAR.

Congrts, whats your ID and panel?

I got 90.60, I am in the CAR panel. I haven't yet received the email, I just saw the ESR it in the Portal. I have 4.30 for Excellence with two relevant weaknesses, 4.80 for Impact with no weakness (so I don't get the score) and 4.70 for Implementation with one weakness. I also have an Ethics clearance letter which could indicate I am in the main list. Also, based on what Dreamer told me.

This is my second application, last year I got 75. It is not a resubmission, as I have changed the panel and the supervisor. I kept the host institution. However, I have addressed all the comments from my previous ESR and a bit more.

Good luck everyone with your current application and future ones. If you would like some specific input from my end, please send me pm. I will stay around however.

[oreoreo]

I got it (97.6% , as Dreamer told me ) !

My number is 8961xx

Gooooooooooood luck all and good night from Canada

[Fish20]

I got it (97.6% , as Dreamer told me ) !

My number is 8961xx

Gooooooooooood luck all and good night from Canada

Congratulations from Canada too! I am still waiting!

[MSCAA2019]

I got it (97.6% , as Dreamer told me ) !

My number is 8961xx

Gooooooooooood luck all and good night from Canada

895 and I haven't received it!

[sezza89]

One of my weaknesses was that I didn’t have a plan to distribute findings to places like schools... even though my proposal said absolutely nothing about schools. Like wat?!

Was asleep and woke up and stupidly checked my email. Got rejected (ST-SOC) with 78% which is a 10% drop from last year. That means I don't even have a seal of excellence so it has all been for nothing. This is quite a blow and I don't really know how to go on from here. On to the comments (listing scores and weaknesses):
excellence 3,80, previous 4,30

- It is not entirely clear from the application how novel is the project compared to the researcher’s own previous creative and research experience. New improvements are unclearly presented.
- The state-of-the-art review does not provide sufficient detail on the relation between this research and other research in the field.
- It is not well specified what forms would be used to transfer applicant expertise to the host institution.
- The courses the applicant would be taking at the host institution are inadequately specified. - It is not entirely clear how the supervisor's expertise will be transferred to the applicant.
impact 4,00, previous 4,40
- The plan for academic publications resulting from the project is not sufficiently explored. The proposed dissemination activities for a 24- month research projects are limited in scope. The exact details of journal articles or monograph publications the researcher aims presenting, lack sufficient details.
- Communication to policy makers and especially to relevant industry stakeholders, significant for the project, are inadequately planned.
- The plans to communicate the results to industry and artistic communities outside the country of research are insufficiently developed.
implementation 4,00, previous 4,70
- Dissemination activities are not clearly allocated in the work plan and related time and resources are insufficiently justified - The work packages, and in particular deliverables and milestones are not described in a detailed way.

I worked hard on improving my application from last year and worked on teh weaknesses there only to see this big list of weaknesses. A lot of them seem bogus reasons to subtract points: what courses would I be taking, academic outputs not sufficiently specified (I gave journal and conference titles though), WP's: in the last proposal they specifically asked less WPs which I did and specified in quite big detail.

[aZr]

@dreamer, how much will i get?

[FestivusShadow]

898xxxx and waiting


I shouldn't have waited for the last moment to submit!!!!!!!!

[Guernica24]

98 %, main list
894XXX

SO happy and relieved!

Wow! Congratulations

It's a hell of a score! Congratulations! Which panel are you in?

EF-ST-SOC / 4.9/4.9/4.9
First time application.