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

[megasphaera]

Well, i was dumped by my potential PI after low score of my first proposal in 2017. Then i asked him nicely to correct and re-submit in 2018, he agreed to consider resubmission. Then, he posted that very topic to find another candidate. When i realised, it was too late for me to find another host and to write new proposal. I can swear i will never do this to another person under my supervision (even for 3/4 months of proposal preparation). It was cruel, he was not transparent taking my chances to find another host. I can't say i wish him good luck.

Wow what a twat. That was a very bad behaviour from the PI.

In my case I thought of the project and wrote it. After several rejection from different fellowship I decided that this project was hopeless. I took the proposal that I wrote and changed host, PI and project. I considered my proposal to be excellent in many ways (apart from the project) so I re used most of it. I was lucky to find an host institution with experience and they helped a lot. Also NCP was quite helpful and give advices on couple of stuff. Sometimes I re-read the proposal and I have the feeling everything is too dense and packed but apart from that I think all the elements are there. Anyway, will see how it goes. Both institution and NCP thinks the proposal is excellent but this does not matter as the reviewers have the power.

Thank you for your feedback.
This time i changed everything: panel, host, research topic.
I believe this is the best one i ever wrote. Fingers crossed and best luck to all of us.

No worries man. I have the feeling that sometimes changing project, pi and host is the best option considering the variability of the evaluations from one year to the next one.

[omari]

Hey guys!
Nice to be here, judging from last year's thread (480 page), this seems to be THE FORUM for MSCA grants.

I am just curious what is this status change that everyone was referring to? Isn't the results deadline in Feb 11th? Sorry I am a newbie and first time to apply (and hopefully the last)

Cheers

[Robrad30]

Welcome! Yeah the results are due on the 11th, but up until last year they were usually released a little early apparently. There is a link that gives you the status of your application. Right now, we’re all in submission. If you saw the forums from last year, once the status changes to ranking or evaluation, things are happening. What exactly the changes mean are the subject of probably about 440 of those 480 pages from last year. Honestly, you’re better off not paying any attention to it.

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?

Hey guys!
Nice to be here, judging from last year's thread (480 page), this seems to be THE FORUM for MSCA grants.

I am just curious what is this status change that everyone was referring to? Isn't the results deadline in Feb 11th? Sorry I am a newbie and first time to apply (and hopefully the last)

Cheers

[Khub_MC]

Hey Guys, I have applied the first time for Marie Curie PDF. Do reviewers consider the number of publications or impact factor of publications? Are there any criteria for the evaluation of the number of publications? I have not much but my PI had been MC fellow. Hope for the best.

[megasphaera]

Hey Guys, I have applied the first time for Marie Curie PDF. Do reviewers consider the number of publications or impact factor of publications? Are there any criteria for the evaluation of the number of publications? I have not much but my PI had been MC fellow. Hope for the best.

That is a topic of mixed opinions herev
On the guidelines it says that they can penalise your application if they think the applicant's publication record is low accorind to career.
About impact factor i have no idea

[MSCA_CHEM_2019]

Hey Guys, I have applied the first time for Marie Curie PDF. Do reviewers consider the number of publications or impact factor of publications? Are there any criteria for the evaluation of the number of publications? I have not much but my PI had been MC fellow. Hope for the best.

That is a topic of mixed opinions herev
On the guidelines it says that they can penalise your application if they think the applicant's publication record is low accorind to career.
About impact factor i have no idea

I think that your position in the article could also be taken into account, but I'm not completely sure. Come on folks, February is here!

[megasphaera]

I have a question for all of you which is independent from the msca. In general, as I said earlier, there is no consensus on that, and usually PI has mixed opinion.
What do you think is better in your opinion:
A) lots of paper (first author and non)
B) one first author publication (impact factor above 10)

In my experience when I have applied for other fellowships (Embo or febs, which I did not get) and stalking winner's profiles I have seen lots of researcher with only one high If publication (maybe they had also a review or another non first author paper). Not to quantify this, because I think is a malpractice in science, but when I applied I had 3 first author papers (If of 5/6) and 3 non first author papers. This was after one year that I got my PHd.what is your opinion on this one?

My feeling is that most of PI are only impressed by one first author high If paper or a lot of mixed papers.

[Ann]

Hey Guys, I have applied the first time for Marie Curie PDF. Do reviewers consider the number of publications or impact factor of publications? Are there any criteria for the evaluation of the number of publications? I have not much but my PI had been MC fellow. Hope for the best.

That is a topic of mixed opinions herev
On the guidelines it says that they can penalise your application if they think the applicant's publication record is low accorind to career.
About impact factor i have no idea

Pages 28 and 29 of the 2020 guidelines describe quite details how applicant will be evaluated. According to that description, the number of publications of the applicant is not mentioned which is actually in alignment with the fact that the CV is separated from the proposal file. But I personally think reviewers would "unconsciously" appreciate your proposal more if you have a remarkable record of publications. This is also my first time, so I am not sure if following the guidelines would help or it's all about pure luck like some have stated though.

[Amar]

I have a question for all of you which is independent from the msca. In general, as I said earlier, there is no consensus on that, and usually PI has mixed opinion.
What do you think is better in your opinion:
A) lots of paper (first author and non)
B) one first author publication (impact factor above 10)

In my experience when I have applied for other fellowships (Embo or febs, which I did not get) and stalking winner's profiles I have seen lots of researcher with only one high If publication (maybe they had also a review or another non first author paper). Not to quantify this, because I think is a malpractice in science, but when I applied I had 3 first author papers (If of 5/6) and 3 non first author papers. This was after one year that I got my PHd.what is your opinion on this one?

My feeling is that most of PI are only impressed by one first author high If paper or a lot of mixed papers.

Hi megasphaera. You asked in regards to papers: "what do you think is better in your opinion"? Do you mean "better" for obtaining competative fellowships or to get some specific position? What do you mean?

[megasphaera]

I have a question for all of you which is independent from the msca. In general, as I said earlier, there is no consensus on that, and usually PI has mixed opinion.
What do you think is better in your opinion:
A) lots of paper (first author and non)
B) one first author publication (impact factor above 10)

In my experience when I have applied for other fellowships (Embo or febs, which I did not get) and stalking winner's profiles I have seen lots of researcher with only one high If publication (maybe they had also a review or another non first author paper). Not to quantify this, because I think is a malpractice in science, but when I applied I had 3 first author papers (If of 5/6) and 3 non first author papers. This was after one year that I got my PHd.what is your opinion on this one?

My feeling is that most of PI are only impressed by one first author high If paper or a lot of mixed papers.

Hi megasphaera. You asked in regards to papers: "what do you think is better in your opinion"? Do you mean "better" for obtaining competative fellowships or to get some specific position? What do you mean?

For a fellowship.