2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)

[WM993]

I didn't get an email yet, but I just got the evaluation summery report uploaded in follow up ---> process documents. Exactly as Dreamer and DreamerGirl said, 94.2. I'll upload the comments I got as soon as I figure out the best way to copy/paste. It's not very copy/paste friendly. Hope they will be useful to people in the future.

Here it is:

Criterion 1 - Excellence
Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 50.00%)
• Quality and credibility of the research/innovation project; level of novelty, appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary
and gender aspects
• Quality and appropriateness of the training and of the two way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host
• Quality of the supervision and of the integration in the team/institution
• Potential of the researcher to reach or re-enforce professional maturity/independence during the fellowship
Strengths:
- The proposal addresses important aspects regarding the long-term challenge of correlating genotypes to phenotypes. The strategy to extract basic generic rules and address complex questions in a simple model organism that is amenable to systematic experimental investigation is
credible. The clearly stated objectives of the project are very well structured and aligned with the proposal goal.
- The approach is innovative and promises to generate a valuable dataset and computational models that will shed light on gene regulatory
networks in E. coli.
- The proposal uses advanced techniques from a variety of fields, effectively profiting from a network of collaborations.
- The proposal specifies in detail how training of the researcher in the various techniques needed for the project will be organised.
- The two directions of knowledge transfer are clearly described and they are based on precisely identified skills gaps. The staff members
responsible for training the researcher are clearly identified at both host institutions and at the two planned secondments.
- The host supervisor has relevant expertise (both scientific and in mentoring) in the field of systems biology. The scientific level of the two
planned secondments is also very good.
- The proposal describes in detail the steps taken for researcher's integration in the scientific circles of the host.
- The researcher's professional experience is very good and aligned with the proposed research, thereby well poised to contribute to reenforce
the professional maturity during the fellowship.
-The new competences and skills to be acquired during the fellowship are highly relevant to the researcher's profile. In addition, the researcher
already has solid interdisciplinary background and considerable variety of soft skills, all of which will be boosted during the fellowship, leading
the way towards scientific independence.

Weaknesses:
- A number of methodology-related issues are not clearly explained (e. g. the claim that the amount of RNA in a single bacterium is too scarce
to apply a single cell transcriptome strategy) or the computational methods/analysis that will be used.
- The scientific publication record of the researcher is not fully strong.

Criterion 2 - Impact
Score: 5.00 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 30.00%)
• Enhancing the future career prospects of the researcher after the fellowship
• Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results
• Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the project activities to different target audiences
Strengths:
- The fellowship will allow the researcher acquiring an advanced skill set that will help them to pursue a scientific career in systems biology.
The fellowship will also contribute to develop new mentorship skills as well as collaborative networks, which will be valuable for achieving
scientific independence in research.
- The plan to ensure sufficient exploitation and dissemination of the project results (through data repositories, publications in open access high
impact journals, and conferences presentations) is very well designed, convincing and substantiated with great detail.
- The proposal clearly indicates how the intellectual property generated in this project will be secured.
- The researcher will expand the extensive and excellent network of communication channels developed during master and PhD studies to
use it for the current project.
- Different target audiences for communication of the results of the project are systematically identified and appropriately addressed via the
use of various communication elements, such as websites, social media, lay-audience activities and outreach events.
- A notable, credible and high-value approach for an outreach towards developing countries is presented, that will strongly contribute to
project dissemination.

Weaknesses:
- None identified

Criterion 3 - Implementation
Score: 4.80 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 20.00%)
• Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources
• Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures, including risk management
• Appropriateness of the institutional environment (infrastructure)
Strengths:
- An extensive work plan is provided that outlines the main aspects of the subsequent steps to be taken for a successful completion of the
project. The mobilized resources for the accomplishment of both research and training objectives are appropriate.
- A realistic time plan for the experiments is proposed and a succinct but informative Gantt chart completes the work plan.
- The three scientific work packages are logically structured and clearly described, and the milestones and deliverables are very well aligned
with the research plan.
- The organizational and management structures, including progress monitoring mechanisms, are appropriate and clearly described.
- Most scientific risks are properly identified and convincingly mitigated with contingent actions.
- Several efficient mechanisms will be used to monitor the progress and achievement of the project goals.
- There is an excellent fit between the aims of the project and the infrastructure and expertise available in the three institutes in which this
project will run. The institutional environment and infrastructure are excellent.

Weakness:
- The estimate of output in terms of peer-reviewed papers is too optimistic.

Congrats and thanks for the kind sharing!

[Cat_Bì]

Are you guys serious?! I don't have anything I'm done being patient!!!!

[MSCA_CHEM_2019]

Are you guys serious?! I don't have anything I'm done being patient!!!!

Maybe they are sending according id

[woloszyn]

Are you guys serious?! I don't have anything I'm done being patient!!!!

Maybe they are sending according id

or by panel

[Cat_Bì]

Are you guys serious?! I don't have anything I'm done being patient!!!!

Maybe they are sending according id

or by panel

Than you guys..I'm awake with my 6 month old, it's 6am here in the UK. When I saw your messages I freaked out...and when I didn't see anything in my inbox I freaked out again!

[Cat_Bì]

I didn't get an email yet, but I just got the evaluation summery report uploaded in follow up ---> process documents. Exactly as Dreamer and DreamerGirl said, 94.2. I'll upload the comments I got as soon as I figure out the best way to copy/paste. It's not very copy/paste friendly. Hope they will be useful to people in the future.

Here it is:

Criterion 1 - Excellence
Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 50.00%)
• Quality and credibility of the research/innovation project; level of novelty, appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary
and gender aspects
• Quality and appropriateness of the training and of the two way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host
• Quality of the supervision and of the integration in the team/institution
• Potential of the researcher to reach or re-enforce professional maturity/independence during the fellowship
Strengths:
- The proposal addresses important aspects regarding the long-term challenge of correlating genotypes to phenotypes. The strategy to extract basic generic rules and address complex questions in a simple model organism that is amenable to systematic experimental investigation is
credible. The clearly stated objectives of the project are very well structured and aligned with the proposal goal.
- The approach is innovative and promises to generate a valuable dataset and computational models that will shed light on gene regulatory
networks in E. coli.
- The proposal uses advanced techniques from a variety of fields, effectively profiting from a network of collaborations.
- The proposal specifies in detail how training of the researcher in the various techniques needed for the project will be organised.
- The two directions of knowledge transfer are clearly described and they are based on precisely identified skills gaps. The staff members
responsible for training the researcher are clearly identified at both host institutions and at the two planned secondments.
- The host supervisor has relevant expertise (both scientific and in mentoring) in the field of systems biology. The scientific level of the two
planned secondments is also very good.
- The proposal describes in detail the steps taken for researcher's integration in the scientific circles of the host.
- The researcher's professional experience is very good and aligned with the proposed research, thereby well poised to contribute to reenforce
the professional maturity during the fellowship.
-The new competences and skills to be acquired during the fellowship are highly relevant to the researcher's profile. In addition, the researcher
already has solid interdisciplinary background and considerable variety of soft skills, all of which will be boosted during the fellowship, leading
the way towards scientific independence.

Weaknesses:
- A number of methodology-related issues are not clearly explained (e. g. the claim that the amount of RNA in a single bacterium is too scarce
to apply a single cell transcriptome strategy) or the computational methods/analysis that will be used.
- The scientific publication record of the researcher is not fully strong.

Criterion 2 - Impact
Score: 5.00 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 30.00%)
• Enhancing the future career prospects of the researcher after the fellowship
• Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results
• Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the project activities to different target audiences
Strengths:
- The fellowship will allow the researcher acquiring an advanced skill set that will help them to pursue a scientific career in systems biology.
The fellowship will also contribute to develop new mentorship skills as well as collaborative networks, which will be valuable for achieving
scientific independence in research.
- The plan to ensure sufficient exploitation and dissemination of the project results (through data repositories, publications in open access high
impact journals, and conferences presentations) is very well designed, convincing and substantiated with great detail.
- The proposal clearly indicates how the intellectual property generated in this project will be secured.
- The researcher will expand the extensive and excellent network of communication channels developed during master and PhD studies to
use it for the current project.
- Different target audiences for communication of the results of the project are systematically identified and appropriately addressed via the
use of various communication elements, such as websites, social media, lay-audience activities and outreach events.
- A notable, credible and high-value approach for an outreach towards developing countries is presented, that will strongly contribute to
project dissemination.

Weaknesses:
- None identified

Criterion 3 - Implementation
Score: 4.80 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 20.00%)
• Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources
• Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures, including risk management
• Appropriateness of the institutional environment (infrastructure)
Strengths:
- An extensive work plan is provided that outlines the main aspects of the subsequent steps to be taken for a successful completion of the
project. The mobilized resources for the accomplishment of both research and training objectives are appropriate.
- A realistic time plan for the experiments is proposed and a succinct but informative Gantt chart completes the work plan.
- The three scientific work packages are logically structured and clearly described, and the milestones and deliverables are very well aligned
with the research plan.
- The organizational and management structures, including progress monitoring mechanisms, are appropriate and clearly described.
- Most scientific risks are properly identified and convincingly mitigated with contingent actions.
- Several efficient mechanisms will be used to monitor the progress and achievement of the project goals.
- There is an excellent fit between the aims of the project and the infrastructure and expertise available in the three institutes in which this
project will run. The institutional environment and infrastructure are excellent.

Weakness:
- The estimate of output in terms of peer-reviewed papers is too optimistic.

Congrats and thanks for the kind sharing!

Thank you for this! Which panel are you in?

[MSCA-IF-EF-RI-2020]

Are you guys serious?! I don't have anything I'm done being patient!!!!

Maybe they are sending according id

or by panel

I'd guess it's by panel and/or ranking within a panel. My ID is 101024XXX. For me things on the follow up page are progressively changing. They just uploaded the invitation letter and the process timeline changed to invited.

[MSCA_CHEM_2019]

Are you guys serious?! I don't have anything I'm done being patient!!!!

Maybe they are sending according id

or by panel

It is posible. Which panels have been informed?

[MSCA-IF-EF-RI-2020]

Congrats and thanks for the kind sharing!

Thank you for this! Which panel are you in?

Thanks and you're welcome. I'm in the reintegration panel. It doesn't have specific panels by discipline as the standard panel.

[msca2019]

can’t really figure out the order of email propagation but if it helps I am in the 103*****s and in SE panel main list. I got the email approx 2 hours ago