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

[Kenniz]

Link doesn't work.

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

yup same for me

maybe this time we get a status change
aaand no, its working again, no change

[gipi]

In the past, how long after the status change were the results released?

[Kenniz]

In the past, how long after the status change were the results released?

the results will be relased at or around feb11, no matter when there will be any status changes

[IF ST LIF]

Link doesn't work.

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

yup same for me

maybe this time we get a status change
aaand no, its working again, no change

It works for me. Still on SUBMISSION.

[Kenniz]

Link doesn't work.

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

yup same for me

maybe this time we get a status change
aaand no, its working again, no change

It works for me. Still on SUBMISSION.

yeah same for me. still, i have nothing like: current phase: submission or something like that on the left side (as i had seen from screenshots from last year with current phase: evaluation). it only says for me submitted under the blue arrow with the date. same for you guys?

[MSCA_CHEM_2019]

I think that the link does not work this year and they are updating the files. I comment this because every time there is maintenance the subsection documents give problems. Possibly, they are working by panels or ID. At the end, when all the ethical requirements have been completed, they will make the final classification. I think it is the only way for them to arrive on time on 11 February. However, this is my opinion and may not be correct.

[AnnaMC]

We will know in two weeks guys. I feel your anxiety, I have so much work and yet this thing is in my mind. We are in this together. Hopefully many of the people in this forum will get it. Sending positive vibes out there, the competition is so fierce and most of us want this so badly. I am sure that many of us truly deserve it, too. May the best of us get it. That's my only wish. Good luck to everyone!

[megasphaera]

We will know in two weeks guys. I feel your anxiety, I have so much work and yet this thing is in my mind. We are in this together. Hopefully many of the people in this forum will get it. Sending positive vibes out there, the competition is so fierce and most of us want this so badly. I am sure that many of us truly deserve it, too. May the best of us get it. That's my only wish. Good luck to everyone!

Yop, agree! Good luck and take it easy!

[Kenniz]

Legal Entity and Bank Account validations tasks will experience issues in the Grant Management Services on Monday, 27.01.2020, between 20:00 and 21:30 CET.

The Grant Management Services will be experiencing issues on Tuesday, 28.01.2020, between 07:30 and 08:10 CET.

I think this means, tomorrow they will update something.

[thoratnd]

Yes, your friend is absolutely giving you the correct information. I myself have won two times MSCA-IF in Eng and for the current evaluation call, I worked as an evaluator and evaluated many proposals.


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.