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

[PetetheCat]

PS Excellence has scored well, always 4++ but altogether not hitting the 96% region ..so close and yet so far....

I am curious as to whether you thought the reviews were fair in each case? Last year I got pretty good reviews, but only made the reserve list. I know that they were looking for the minor points to criticize. So I am curious to see what comes out this year - I know my application is good, but I could also list off ten things that six months on I think I would make improvements on (although of course space is always the issue!). So did you think that you had fair reviews, or did you get any comments that didn't seem fair?

Last year I got one review comment about not being clear about office space etc., despite the fact that my host institution literally provided me with boiler-plate language to make sure that the logistical side was in there. This year I put it in bold type! But all the other minor criticisms felt fair.

[megasphaera]

PS Excellence has scored well, always 4++ but altogether not hitting the 96% region ..so close and yet so far....

I am curious as to whether you thought the reviews were fair in each case? Last year I got pretty good reviews, but only made the reserve list. I know that they were looking for the minor points to criticize. So I am curious to see what comes out this year - I know my application is good, but I could also list off ten things that six months on I think I would make improvements on (although of course space is always the issue!). So did you think that you had fair reviews, or did you get any comments that didn't seem fair?

Last year I got one review comment about not being clear about office space etc., despite the fact that my host institution literally provided me with boiler-plate language to make sure that the logistical side was in there. This year I put it in bold type! But all the other minor criticisms felt fair.

Wait, WHAT? Did they seriously told you that you have not specified office space????

[PetetheCat]

PS Excellence has scored well, always 4++ but altogether not hitting the 96% region ..so close and yet so far....

I am curious as to whether you thought the reviews were fair in each case? Last year I got pretty good reviews, but only made the reserve list. I know that they were looking for the minor points to criticize. So I am curious to see what comes out this year - I know my application is good, but I could also list off ten things that six months on I think I would make improvements on (although of course space is always the issue!). So did you think that you had fair reviews, or did you get any comments that didn't seem fair?

Last year I got one review comment about not being clear about office space etc., despite the fact that my host institution literally provided me with boiler-plate language to make sure that the logistical side was in there. This year I put it in bold type! But all the other minor criticisms felt fair.

Wait, WHAT? Did they seriously told you that you have not specified office space????

The comment said "The more specific aspects of the institutional infrastructure (e.g. tangible support such as office space) are not discussed in specific detail." Like I said, my host institution has language for this purpose and I used it, and it specifically stated who the person is who would make sure that I had office space, computer, phone etc. upon arrival. I am a social scientist so low on big infrastructure needs.

This was in the implementation score, which was my worst (4.2) and the other weakness was a fair one (if frustrating, but I see why they identified it and thought it significant) which is since resolved.

[Kitten]

some of the criticisms were fair, but some were way off mark - the proposal has been fine-tuned every year based on feedback and yet received a progressively lower score - last time 86%, so it really does depend on the reviewer

[megasphaera]

I am curious as to whether you thought the reviews were fair in each case? Last year I got pretty good reviews, but only made the reserve list. I know that they were looking for the minor points to criticize. So I am curious to see what comes out this year - I know my application is good, but I could also list off ten things that six months on I think I would make improvements on (although of course space is always the issue!). So did you think that you had fair reviews, or did you get any comments that didn't seem fair?

Last year I got one review comment about not being clear about office space etc., despite the fact that my host institution literally provided me with boiler-plate language to make sure that the logistical side was in there. This year I put it in bold type! But all the other minor criticisms felt fair.

Wait, WHAT? Did they seriously told you that you have not specified office space????

The comment said "The more specific aspects of the institutional infrastructure (e.g. tangible support such as office space) are not discussed in specific detail." Like I said, my host institution has language for this purpose and I used it, and it specifically stated who the person is who would make sure that I had office space, computer, phone etc. upon arrival. I am a social scientist so low on big infrastructure needs.

This was in the implementation score, which was my worst (4.2) and the other weakness was a fair one (if frustrating, but I see why they identified it and thought it significant) which is since resolved.

Oh man, that is the stupidest comment ever. I could have understood the whole thing without the office space part.
I hate when they say it's not discussed in specific details. Is such a subjective comment and they should Av d use that. I think is also stated in the guide for evaluators that they have to give detailed answer and not just "oh according to my criteria is not enough".

[AdinaBabesh]

I think this is really exaggerated from the reviewers side. At this level and for this money this kind of infrastructure details shouldn't be a topic of discussion. Let's be serious, everyone will get an office space and a computer, noone will write her/his articles on the floor and conduct the research on tons of papers.

I am curious as to whether you thought the reviews were fair in each case? Last year I got pretty good reviews, but only made the reserve list. I know that they were looking for the minor points to criticize. So I am curious to see what comes out this year - I know my application is good, but I could also list off ten things that six months on I think I would make improvements on (although of course space is always the issue!). So did you think that you had fair reviews, or did you get any comments that didn't seem fair?

Last year I got one review comment about not being clear about office space etc., despite the fact that my host institution literally provided me with boiler-plate language to make sure that the logistical side was in there. This year I put it in bold type! But all the other minor criticisms felt fair.

Wait, WHAT? Did they seriously told you that you have not specified office space????

The comment said "The more specific aspects of the institutional infrastructure (e.g. tangible support such as office space) are not discussed in specific detail." Like I said, my host institution has language for this purpose and I used it, and it specifically stated who the person is who would make sure that I had office space, computer, phone etc. upon arrival. I am a social scientist so low on big infrastructure needs.

This was in the implementation score, which was my worst (4.2) and the other weakness was a fair one (if frustrating, but I see why they identified it and thought it significant) which is since resolved.

[megasphaera]

some of the criticisms were fair, but some were way off mark - the proposal has been fine-tuned every year based on feedback and yet received a progressively lower score - last time 86%, so it really does depend on the reviewer

As someone said before, they might be biased when they read is a resubmission. I tend to believe that.

[megasphaera]

I think this is really exaggerated from the reviewers side. At this level and for this money this kind of infrastructure details shouldn't be a topic of discussion. Let's be serious, everyone will get an office space and a computer, noone will write her/his articles on the floor and conduct the research on tons of papers.

Wait, WHAT? Did they seriously told you that you have not specified office space????

The comment said "The more specific aspects of the institutional infrastructure (e.g. tangible support such as office space) are not discussed in specific detail." Like I said, my host institution has language for this purpose and I used it, and it specifically stated who the person is who would make sure that I had office space, computer, phone etc. upon arrival. I am a social scientist so low on big infrastructure needs.

This was in the implementation score, which was my worst (4.2) and the other weakness was a fair one (if frustrating, but I see why they identified it and thought it significant) which is since resolved.

Exactly. I can understand if you are in life science like me and let's say you want to do confocal microscopy and the institution has no confocal microscope. But cmon the office space part is just BULLSHIT!!!

[AdinaBabesh]

And in specific details what do you say: a table, a chair, some office space, a computer, printer, scanner, pens, paper, and you put your shopping list there to reach sufficient specific detail ...

I think this is really exaggerated from the reviewers side. At this level and for this money this kind of infrastructure details shouldn't be a topic of discussion. Let's be serious, everyone will get an office space and a computer, noone will write her/his articles on the floor and conduct the research on tons of papers.

The comment said "The more specific aspects of the institutional infrastructure (e.g. tangible support such as office space) are not discussed in specific detail." Like I said, my host institution has language for this purpose and I used it, and it specifically stated who the person is who would make sure that I had office space, computer, phone etc. upon arrival. I am a social scientist so low on big infrastructure needs.

This was in the implementation score, which was my worst (4.2) and the other weakness was a fair one (if frustrating, but I see why they identified it and thought it significant) which is since resolved.

Exactly. I can understand if you are in life science like me and let's say you want to do confocal microscopy and the institution has no confocal microscope. But cmon the office space part is just BULLSHIT!!!

[megasphaera]

And in specific details what do you say: a table, a chair, some office space, a computer, printer, scanner, pens, paper, and you put your shopping list there to reach sufficient detail ...

I think this is really exaggerated from the reviewers side. At this level and for this money this kind of infrastructure details shouldn't be a topic of discussion. Let's be serious, everyone will get an office space and a computer, noone will write her/his articles on the floor and conduct the research on tons of papers.

Exactly. I can understand if you are in life science like me and let's say you want to do confocal microscopy and the institution has no confocal microscope. But cmon the office space part is just BULLSHIT!!!

Also you need to specify you have access to a toilet. Just in case you need to poo all the amount of bullshit that they might wrote.

Specific details my ass!!