Page 64 of 221
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:55 pm
by gipi
Oh ok, thanks.
What I don't understand is: if the outcome depends that much on the evaluators and those on the chosen keywords, if one resubmits the same proposal improved by addressing the weakness points and maintaining the same keywords, how is it possible to get lower score the second time? I've read so so many people improving their proposal and getting much lower score the second time ... this doesn't make sense to me.
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:00 pm
by MSCA_CHEM_2019
gipi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:55 pm
Oh ok, thanks.
What I don't understand is: if the outcome depends that much on the evaluators and those on the chosen keywords, if one resubmits the same proposal improved by addressing the weakness points and maintaining the same keywords, how is it possible to get lower score the second time? I've read so so many people improving their proposal and getting much lower score the second time ... this doesn't make sense to me.
Yes, this is the question. The evaluation of the proposal is different for the re submissions because the evaluators are differents. For this reason, the evaluation is very subjective and depend on the evaluators. This is my point of view.
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:01 pm
by Kenniz
gipi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:55 pm
Oh ok, thanks.
What I don't understand is: if the outcome depends that much on the evaluators and those on the chosen keywords, if one resubmits the same proposal improved by addressing the weakness points and maintaining the same keywords, how is it possible to get lower score the second time? I've read so so many people improving their proposal and getting much lower score the second time ... this doesn't make sense to me.
because, as you said it yourself, it depends on the evaluators. they don't know what the previous guys said or what score they gave, but the know it is a resubmission. everybody tends to grade resubmissions lower, because they were already rejected.
i know several with high grade submissions (all above 85 atleast) and most of them either got it directly or had the best score the first time they submitted. i guess if you have a really bad first submission, you tend to improve with tips on the 2nd, but if you already had a high score and get rejected, you usually decline, because of reviewer bias. thats my guess
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:08 pm
by MSCA_CHEM_2019
Kenniz wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:01 pm
gipi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:55 pm
Oh ok, thanks.
What I don't understand is: if the outcome depends that much on the evaluators and those on the chosen keywords, if one resubmits the same proposal improved by addressing the weakness points and maintaining the same keywords, how is it possible to get lower score the second time? I've read so so many people improving their proposal and getting much lower score the second time ... this doesn't make sense to me.
because, as you said it yourself, it depends on the evaluators. they don't know what the previous guys said or what score they gave, but the know it is a resubmission. everybody tends to grade resubmissions lower, because they were already rejected.
i know several with high grade submissions (all above 85 atleast) and most of them either got it directly or had the best score the first time they submitted. i guess if you have a really bad first submission, you tend to improve with tips on the 2nd, but if you already had a high score and get rejected, you usually decline, because of reviewer bias. thats my guess
You are right
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:31 pm
by MSCA_SOC_2019
I hope you are wrong
Last year I got 89!
We will see in 2 weeks
Kenniz wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:01 pm
gipi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:55 pm
Oh ok, thanks.
What I don't understand is: if the outcome depends that much on the evaluators and those on the chosen keywords, if one resubmits the same proposal improved by addressing the weakness points and maintaining the same keywords, how is it possible to get lower score the second time? I've read so so many people improving their proposal and getting much lower score the second time ... this doesn't make sense to me.
because, as you said it yourself, it depends on the evaluators. they don't know what the previous guys said or what score they gave, but the know it is a resubmission. everybody tends to grade resubmissions lower, because they were already rejected.
i know several with high grade submissions (all above 85 atleast) and most of them either got it directly or had the best score the first time they submitted. i guess if you have a really bad first submission, you tend to improve with tips on the 2nd, but if you already had a high score and get rejected, you usually decline, because of reviewer bias. thats my guess
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:37 pm
by MSCA_SOC_2019
MSCA_SOC_2019 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:31 pm
I hope you are wrong
Last year I got 89!
We will see in 2 weeks
Kenniz wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:01 pm
gipi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:55 pm
Oh ok, thanks.
What I don't understand is: if the outcome depends that much on the evaluators and those on the chosen keywords, if one resubmits the same proposal improved by addressing the weakness points and maintaining the same keywords, how is it possible to get lower score the second time? I've read so so many people improving their proposal and getting much lower score the second time ... this doesn't make sense to me.
because, as you said it yourself, it depends on the evaluators. they don't know what the previous guys said or what score they gave, but the know it is a resubmission. everybody tends to grade resubmissions lower, because they were already rejected.
i know several with high grade submissions (all above 85 atleast) and most of them either got it directly or had the best score the first time they submitted. i guess if you have a really bad first submission, you tend to improve with tips on the 2nd, but if you already had a high score and get rejected, you usually decline, because of reviewer bias. thats my guess
Maybe it's better not to mention it's a resubmission? I guess it is not mandatory anyway...
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:28 pm
by megasphaera
MSCA_CHEM_2019 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:40 pm
I think that although there is an evaluation manual, each evaluator will evaluate according to his/her criteria, so the evaluation is very subjective. This is reflected in the variations of scores in the re submission. In addition, I think it has been commented in this post or last year (I don't remember well), that proposals with sections of impact and implementation with general aspects but with a solid scientific proposal get the scholarship.
Couldn't agree more with you
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:31 pm
by megasphaera
Kenniz wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:01 pm
gipi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:55 pm
Oh ok, thanks.
What I don't understand is: if the outcome depends that much on the evaluators and those on the chosen keywords, if one resubmits the same proposal improved by addressing the weakness points and maintaining the same keywords, how is it possible to get lower score the second time? I've read so so many people improving their proposal and getting much lower score the second time ... this doesn't make sense to me.
because, as you said it yourself, it depends on the evaluators. they don't know what the previous guys said or what score they gave, but the know it is a resubmission. everybody tends to grade resubmissions lower, because they were already rejected.
i know several with high grade submissions (all above 85 atleast) and most of them either got it directly or had the best score the first time they submitted. i guess if you have a really bad first submission, you tend to improve with tips on the 2nd, but if you already had a high score and get rejected, you usually decline, because of reviewer bias. thats my guess
Yes probably you are right. They know is a resubmission so they are kind of biased.
Of the people I know (5/6) all of them got it the first time. If you failed once I think the best way is to get a new project and new host.
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:32 pm
by megasphaera
MSCA_SOC_2019 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:37 pm
MSCA_SOC_2019 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:31 pm
I hope you are wrong
Last year I got 89!
We will see in 2 weeks
Kenniz wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:01 pm
because, as you said it yourself, it depends on the evaluators. they don't know what the previous guys said or what score they gave, but the know it is a resubmission. everybody tends to grade resubmissions lower, because they were already rejected.
i know several with high grade submissions (all above 85 atleast) and most of them either got it directly or had the best score the first time they submitted. i guess if you have a really bad first submission, you tend to improve with tips on the 2nd, but if you already had a high score and get rejected, you usually decline, because of reviewer bias. thats my guess
Maybe it's better not to mention it's a resubmission? I guess it is not mandatory anyway...
I think is mandatory to declare a resubmission, no?
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:40 pm
by MC2020
megasphaera wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:32 pm
MSCA_SOC_2019 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:37 pm
MSCA_SOC_2019 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:31 pm
I hope you are wrong
Last year I got 89!
We will see in 2 weeks
Maybe it's better not to mention it's a resubmission? I guess it is not mandatory anyway...
I think is mandatory to declare a resubmission, no?
Yes I think so