Talk Academia

Ann wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:00 pm

megasphaera wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:32 am

Khub_MC wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 8:40 am

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.

megasphaera wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:47 pm

Amar wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:14 pm

megasphaera wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:17 pm

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.

SimpaLif wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:53 pm

How do they calculate final percentages? After first attempt I got:

Excellence 3.8
Impact 4.8
Implementation 4.7

SimpaLif wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:53 pm

How do they calculate final percentages? After first attempt I got:

Excellence 3.8
Impact 4.8
Implementation 4.7

MSCA-ch wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:28 pm

Excellence 50% Impact 30% Implementation 20%

So,
((3.8/5)*0.5) + ((4.8/5)*0.3) + ((4.7/5)*0.2) = 85.6

(If my math is correct )

SimpaLif wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:53 pm

How do they calculate final percentages? After first attempt I got:

Excellence 3.8
Impact 4.8
Implementation 4.7

megasphaera wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:35 pm

SimpaLif wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:53 pm

How do they calculate final percentages? After first attempt I got:

Excellence 3.8
Impact 4.8
Implementation 4.7

A bit more in excellence and you would have got it.
What kind of comments you got in excellence, if I may ask?

Khub_MC wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:12 pm

Ann wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:00 pm

megasphaera wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:32 am

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.

Yeah. That may be true. I think it all depends on the proposal and host. Good luck to all of us.

SimpaLif wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 8:52 pm

megasphaera wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:35 pm

SimpaLif wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:53 pm

How do they calculate final percentages? After first attempt I got:

Excellence 3.8
Impact 4.8
Implementation 4.7

A bit more in excellence and you would have got it.
What kind of comments you got in excellence, if I may ask?

Comments were really good and some were really useful. Please find them in one of my previous posts, couple of pages ago.

MSCA_CHEM_2019 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:44 am

Khub_MC wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:12 pm

Ann wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:00 pm

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.

Yeah. That may be true. I think it all depends on the proposal and host. Good luck to all of us.

I read that an excellent proposal, a hot topic scientific project and a recognized host can help to get the fellowship. But... The evaluators are important...