Talk Academia

AdinaBabesh wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:06 pm

They do look into the CVs, in my case they said " The researcher has an impressive CV in view to their career stage.". I won't say they are wrong

Anais wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:00 pm

Shapovalov wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:58 pm

Pretty insane.

I do have a follow up question. Did you highlight your publication record in Part B1? Iirc, reviewers are not obliged to see Part B2(where the CV is) while evaluating Part B1.

So they deemed it "moderate" without knowing anything about it?

I am so flattered!

"The researcher has an excellent, international, intercultural track record of doctoral work, university teaching, and publication in high-impact journals. Currently based outside Europe, the researcher will be demonstrably tremendously boosted, and offers evidence of performing very well, during his MSC fellowship."

Shapovalov wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:58 pm

FestivusShadow wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:33 pm

The potential of the researcher to reach professional independence during the fellowship is not fully evident taking into account the moderate track record and personal achievements.


5 yr PhD and 2 yr post doc experience, 4 patents, 8 first author papers (2 JACS) and a total of 17 papers with a global average impact of 8. If this this qualified as moderate track record then were they planning to award the fellowship to Nobel laureates or what.


Pissed!!!!

Pretty insane.

I do have a follow up question. Did you highlight your publication record in Part B1? Iirc, reviewers are not obliged to see Part B2(where the CV is) while evaluating Part B1.

That is a bit ridiculous. Why would we do part B2 then of the reviewers are not going to read it? If I have to put CV information in B1 than 10 pages does not cut it. I think there are reviewers that simply do not care. Maybe the best is to have a fixed team of reviewers and have monthly deadlines where only a limited nº of people can apply. For example: 1000 applicants per month and every month, 1/12 of the budget is released. The timeline can become shorter than as well. That way you don't have disinterested reviewers working against tight deadlines.

This may be the last post for this year - may see all those who didn't make it on the next forum for 2020 - see you next January!!!

Hi! do we know which are the top 10 host institutions in Europe and how many fellowships they have been granted on the 2019 call?

does anybody know if it is possible to alter the starting date of the funding?
my situation is that i will know in 2-3 months if i get a starting funding of 9 months that i could use before msca start, but i have to give a starting date for msca now. can it be changed or is there any way of handling this?

Hi all, my proposal was successful but it is not clear to me what are the next steps to be taken. There is a grant agreement to sign, but it should be done by the host institution or by myself? Do I need to get in contact with someone, and if yes, how can I find her/his contact? Thanks for the help!

Could successful applicants in the social science please share their projects ? It would be extremely helpful to prepare next year application. .....Thanks and congratulations to all of you!!!!

Thanks for the Tip, could've strategized better . Is it obligatory to spend most of the time on the company premises though?

Cheers

Robrad30 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:05 pm

If you are thinking of reapplying next year, maybe consider applying to the SE panel and do your placement at the company? You absolutely would get it with a score of 88 in SE. sorry to hear you didn’t get it this time round though.

Trufflethor wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:28 am

Hey guys,

just got my rejection (MSCA-IF-EF-ST - score - 88). I gotta say, most comments are quite general, of the sorts I have read before here, conerning targeted publication number too high or dissemination not properly defined, which is fine.

What I am sure though cost me the grant was the excellenece (4.20), since I purposefully stayed vague since we work together with a company that do not want to reveal exactly the idea, and some parts not being exactly identified was picked up. Kinda set us up for failure there .

Anyway, cheers and I guess thanks for the conjunct suffering.

Cheers!

Hi I am new on this forum. I am one of those who have not managed to get it. What is weird in my case is that I received extremely positive comments on my potential, institution, supervision quality, knowledge transfer, originality of the project, interdisciplinary dimension, communication strategies, etck. and they insisted on the 'not sufficiently realistic dissemination strategy' (only 4.5 in Impact criterion only for this weakness) and found two three weak points concerning the data (I did not mention the number of words....) and the approaches to use . Points that they purposefully foregrounded. My supervisor is a pioneer in the field and a leading figure (about 10 000 citations) and they contested our methodology... I don't know if this is due to Brexit or to the evaluators' ignorance. Has anyone else here collaborated with an UK university?

Sorry as for the approaches they were clearly defined but they said that I didn't give examples how the analysis would be achieved.... I got 4.20, 4.50. and 4.70. ...