2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
Hi everybody!
Just want to share news about the SOC panel.
Got the grant in SOC (ST-EF) with 94.80.
Did not receive an email yet. The info was uploaded in the portal at exactly 8 am UK time.
Wish you all good luck . In case you don't get it, do not give up, this was my second atempt (same proposal, improved based on the comments). Got 86 last year.
Just want to share news about the SOC panel.
Got the grant in SOC (ST-EF) with 94.80.
Did not receive an email yet. The info was uploaded in the portal at exactly 8 am UK time.
Wish you all good luck . In case you don't get it, do not give up, this was my second atempt (same proposal, improved based on the comments). Got 86 last year.
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
Or it's just that people are more likely to share if they get it than if they don't.robust_and_resilient wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:31 amI like your theories more than emails by score because I'm still waitingnat-if2020 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:21 amI am in PHY and I received it around lunchtime in the past two years, rejected, so my theory is that they send them randomlyphysics_girl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:17 amI know someone last year in PHY who didn't hear until 5pm and got the grant with high 90s as their score. So I'm not sure about the theory that they send the emails by score
but I don't see any rejection emails reported here in the chat - people seem to receive good news first
btw I am in physics too but apply for CAR panel. Good luck, colleagues!
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
robust_and_resilient wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:31 amI like your theories more than emails by score because I'm still waitingnat-if2020 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:21 amI am in PHY and I received it around lunchtime in the past two years, rejected, so my theory is that they send them randomlyphysics_girl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:17 amI know someone last year in PHY who didn't hear until 5pm and got the grant with high 90s as their score. So I'm not sure about the theory that they send the emails by score
but I don't see any rejection emails reported here in the chat - people seem to receive good news first
btw I am in physics too but apply for CAR panel. Good luck, colleagues!
Maybe people that got rejection will eed more time to process it.
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
what is the statistics of how many got funded in each categoryCountZ wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 9:09 amThanks for the thread, PetetheCat! Good luck everyone!
UPDATE
2020 Statistics:
2019 Statistics:A total of 11,573 proposals were submitted in response to this call. The number of proposals for each type of action is shown below:
- Standard European Fellowships (MSCA-IF-EF-ST): 8,927 proposals
- Reintegration Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-RI): 739 proposals
- Career Restart Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR): 669 proposals
- Society & Enterprise Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-SE): 241 proposals
- Global Fellowships (MSCA-IF-GF): 997 proposals
2018 Statistics:A total of 9,875 proposals were submitted in response to this call. The number of proposals for each type of action is shown below:
- Standard European Fellowships (MSCA-IF-EF-ST): 7,673 proposals
- Reintegration Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-RI): 667 proposals
- Career Restart Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR): 470 proposals
- Society & Enterprise Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-SE): 210 proposals
- Global Fellowships (MSCA-IF-GF): 855 proposals
2017 Statistics:A total of 9,830 proposals were submitted in response to this call. The number of proposals for each type of action is shown below:
- Standard European Fellowships (MSCA-IF-EF-ST): 7,565 proposals
- Reintegration Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-RI): 610 proposals
- Career Restart Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR): 471 proposals
- Society & Enterprise Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-SE): 327 proposals
- Global Fellowships (MSCA-IF-GF): 857 proposals
2016 Statistics:A total of 9,089 proposals were submitted in response to this call. The number of proposals for each type of action is shown below:
- Standard European Fellowships (MSCA-IF-EF-ST): 7,145 proposals
- Reintegration Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-RI): 561 proposals
- Career Restart Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR): 352 proposals
- Society & Enterprise Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-SE): 173 proposals
- Global Fellowships (MSCA-IF-GF): 858 proposalsUPDATE 2A total of 8,946 proposals were submitted in response to this call. The number of proposals for each type of action is shown below:
- Standard European Fellowships (MSCA-IF-EF-ST): 7,140 proposals
- Reintegration Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-RI): 528 proposals
- Career Restart Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR): 251 proposals
- Society & Enterprise Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-SE): 111 proposals
- Global Fellowships (MSCA-IF-GF): 916 proposals
The increase in applications this year are:
All panels: 17%
ST 16%
RI 11%
CAR 42%
SE 15%
GF 13%
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:58 pm
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
Hi guys,
For those who are waiting for your results in the SOC (ST-IF) panel - I just got mine, proposal number 10102xxxxx. I submitted about a day before the deadline.
I won the fellowship, but I already knew that from the DreamTeam and celebrated heavily over the week-end .
For the record, I went from evaluation to ranking in about hour. According to DreamTeam, and I am at the bottom of the awardees' list, in the 200s. On the anecdotal evidence that we have, I support the theory that successful applications with higher scores go into ranking first .
I already shared my story a few (dozens of) pages back, but just a recap - I got this on my 4th time. Scores in the range of 89-92 each time, three SoE, one reserve list (last year). I was not going to re-apply this year but I had an idea of how to improve my proposal in terms of state-of-the-art data management and dissemination and I believe that's what worked in the end (as in, resulted in the couple of extra points that I was missing). The core idea/research design has stayed exactly the same all four times.
My two cents for future applicants. 1. Don't incorporate reviewer comments unless you agree with them. Reviewers change every year and it's not uncommon to see conflicting advice from reviewers. I was absolutely devastated the second time around because I was convinced that revisions on the basis of reviewer feedback would do the job, and the new reviews ignored the revisions and picked on exactly the aspects that were praised the first submission . It's your research and this scheme is for experienced researchers, and you always know better. 2. Those who frame your outcome as a 'failure' - all this means is that you didn't cut the treshold this year around. I passed with 93,60 and I saw someone who has been placed on reserve list with 93 on my panel, so I barely cut it. If you scored high, your proposal is probably brilliant, but there were other equally brilliant applicants who got just a little bit luckier than you. That's all that is and is not a reflection of the quality of your research. Break a leg, everyone!
For those who are waiting for your results in the SOC (ST-IF) panel - I just got mine, proposal number 10102xxxxx. I submitted about a day before the deadline.
I won the fellowship, but I already knew that from the DreamTeam and celebrated heavily over the week-end .
For the record, I went from evaluation to ranking in about hour. According to DreamTeam, and I am at the bottom of the awardees' list, in the 200s. On the anecdotal evidence that we have, I support the theory that successful applications with higher scores go into ranking first .
I already shared my story a few (dozens of) pages back, but just a recap - I got this on my 4th time. Scores in the range of 89-92 each time, three SoE, one reserve list (last year). I was not going to re-apply this year but I had an idea of how to improve my proposal in terms of state-of-the-art data management and dissemination and I believe that's what worked in the end (as in, resulted in the couple of extra points that I was missing). The core idea/research design has stayed exactly the same all four times.
My two cents for future applicants. 1. Don't incorporate reviewer comments unless you agree with them. Reviewers change every year and it's not uncommon to see conflicting advice from reviewers. I was absolutely devastated the second time around because I was convinced that revisions on the basis of reviewer feedback would do the job, and the new reviews ignored the revisions and picked on exactly the aspects that were praised the first submission . It's your research and this scheme is for experienced researchers, and you always know better. 2. Those who frame your outcome as a 'failure' - all this means is that you didn't cut the treshold this year around. I passed with 93,60 and I saw someone who has been placed on reserve list with 93 on my panel, so I barely cut it. If you scored high, your proposal is probably brilliant, but there were other equally brilliant applicants who got just a little bit luckier than you. That's all that is and is not a reflection of the quality of your research. Break a leg, everyone!
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
Congratulations little_venice.
What is your score?
What is your score?
Little_Venice wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:37 amHi guys,
For those who are waiting for your results in the SOC panel - I just got mine, proposal number 10102xxxxx. I submitted about a day before the deadline.
I won the fellowship, but I already knew that from the DreamTeam and celebrated heavily over the week-end .
For the record, I went from evaluation to ranking in about hour. According to DreamTeam, and I am at the bottom of the awardees' list, in the 200s. On the anecdotal evidence that we have, I support the theory that successful applications with higher scores go into ranking first .
I already shared my story a few (dozens of) pages back, but just a recap - I got this on my 4th time. Scores in the range of 89-92 each time, three SoE, one reserve list (last year). I was not going to re-apply this year but I had an idea of how to improve my proposal in terms of state-of-the-art data management and dissemination and I believe that's what worked in the end (as in, resulted in the couple of extra points that I was missing). The core idea/research design has stayed exactly the same all four times.
My two cents for future applicants. 1. Don't incorporate reviewer comments unless you agree with them. Reviewers change every year and it's not uncommon to see conflicting advice from reviewers. I was absolutely devastated the second time around because I was convinced that revisions on the basis of reviewer feedback would do the job, and the new reviews ignored the revisions and picked on exactly the aspects that were praised the first submission . It's your research and this scheme is for experienced researchers, and you always know better. 2. Those who frame your outcome as a 'failure' - all this means is that you didn't cut the treshold this year around. I passed with 93,60 and I saw someone who has been placed on reserve list with 93 on my panel, so I barely cut it. If you scored high, your proposal is probably brilliant, but there were other equally brilliant applicants who got just a little bit luckier than you. That's all that is and is not a reflection of the quality of your research. Break a leg, everyone!
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
I found mine when I checked. I received the 3 emails around 3 hours ago.MSCA_ENG20 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:08 amYes, I think only the high scores have been updated so far.
Anyway, it's clearly not by project ID.
I also thought it goes in sequence by proposal number but now I guess it goes by the score.
EDIT: I am in the S&E panel this year which is smaller. I also remember last year it was by proposal ID because I was more towards the end.
Last edited by omari on Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
Well, this is good then. I haven't heard anything and haven't been processed further, but it said on the evaluation 96.00. So I should been getting a letter/offer soon. Also in SOC.pafi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:33 amHi everybody!
Just want to share news about the SOC panel.
Got the grant in SOC (ST-EF) with 94.80.
Did not receive an email yet. The info was uploaded in the portal at exactly 8 am UK time.
Wish you all good luck . In case you don't get it, do not give up, this was my second atempt (same proposal, improved based on the comments). Got 86 last year.
This is my second attempt as well. I did poorly on my first attempt too, I got 67.20. But I listened carefully to all the criticisms and got lots of feedback from other researchers and made all the improvements!
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
So it matches with DreamTeam??!! I am still waiting for the email and nothing is in the portalLittle_Venice wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:37 amHi guys,
For those who are waiting for your results in the SOC (ST-IF) panel - I just got mine, proposal number 10102xxxxx. I submitted about a day before the deadline.
I won the fellowship, but I already knew that from the DreamTeam and celebrated heavily over the week-end .
For the record, I went from evaluation to ranking in about hour. According to DreamTeam, and I am at the bottom of the awardees' list, in the 200s. On the anecdotal evidence that we have, I support the theory that successful applications with higher scores go into ranking first .
I already shared my story a few (dozens of) pages back, but just a recap - I got this on my 4th time. Scores in the range of 89-92 each time, three SoE, one reserve list (last year). I was not going to re-apply this year but I had an idea of how to improve my proposal in terms of state-of-the-art data management and dissemination and I believe that's what worked in the end (as in, resulted in the couple of extra points that I was missing). The core idea/research design has stayed exactly the same all four times.
My two cents for future applicants. 1. Don't incorporate reviewer comments unless you agree with them. Reviewers change every year and it's not uncommon to see conflicting advice from reviewers. I was absolutely devastated the second time around because I was convinced that revisions on the basis of reviewer feedback would do the job, and the new reviews ignored the revisions and picked on exactly the aspects that were praised the first submission . It's your research and this scheme is for experienced researchers, and you always know better. 2. Those who frame your outcome as a 'failure' - all this means is that you didn't cut the treshold this year around. I passed with 93,60 and I saw someone who has been placed on reserve list with 93 on my panel, so I barely cut it. If you scored high, your proposal is probably brilliant, but there were other equally brilliant applicants who got just a little bit luckier than you. That's all that is and is not a reflection of the quality of your research. Break a leg, everyone!
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:17 pm
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
perhaps you're righttrina_80 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:33 amOr it's just that people are more likely to share if they get it than if they don't.robust_and_resilient wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:31 amI like your theories more than emails by score because I'm still waitingnat-if2020 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:21 am
I am in PHY and I received it around lunchtime in the past two years, rejected, so my theory is that they send them randomly
but I don't see any rejection emails reported here in the chat - people seem to receive good news first
btw I am in physics too but apply for CAR panel. Good luck, colleagues!
but last year a lot of rejected people wanted to complain in the chat about unfair reviewers' comments... this year, nobody so far