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

[NoPanic42]

I think you're good no panic they seem to be accurate

no complain about DreamTeam, I just cannot believe it. It is my third attempt and my last chance!

This is my one and only chance, but I will do the project no matter what so that's what's really important. keep us updated when its official! btw do you know when you switched to ranking ? I decided to wait (of course I shouldn't have) so im trying to judge when LIF people should just get on with their day if they haven't heard

In ranking straightaway. (LIF by the way)

[Wintersun]

Guys, I am on the reserve list with 92,80 from SOC ST-EF. Do you know if we can see the cut off somewhere?

[Little_Venice]

Not yet but I know someone on reserve with 93 and I am in with 93,60, so it's somewhere in between those two.

Guys, I am on the reserve list with 92,80 from SOC ST-EF. Do you know if we can see the cut off somewhere?

[fumagalli]

Congratulations, it is always reassuring to see that hard work pays off!

This is my first try and got 84 (right below SOE... that hurts a bit more even). I cant wrap my head around trying again next year: i would need to find another host (I started there on a short postdoc already), another project, I am very curious to know how you found the strength to go through this 4 times!

In all cases, well-deserved win, all the best!

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!

[Little_Venice]

Thanks!
The second time re-applying is the hardest . It gets much easier from then on and you learn to take this for what it is. Potential hosts are usually receptive to new applicants as they get a lot of benefit (both symbolic and financial) from participating in the scheme, it shouldn't be that difficult if you have a good research idea. I literally cold-emailed the best researcher in my field with my proposal and introduced myself and she has supported me for 4 years without ever meeting me in person. Re: re-applying, it does eat up a lot of time as the less the space, the harder it is to introduce revisions, no way around this, I am afraid..

Break a leg to you in the future!!

Congratulations, it is always reassuring to see that hard work pays off!

This is my first try and got 84 (right below SOE... that hurts a bit more even). I cant wrap my head around trying again next year: i would need to find another host (I started there on a short postdoc already), another project, I am very curious to know how you found the strength to go through this 4 times!

In all cases, well-deserved win, all the best!

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!

[Mary_dramaqueen]

Anyone from GF-SOC? No email and nothing on the website...freaking out

[Shathlia]

OK. I just got the official e-mail!!!

SWEET. Too bad it's 1 am here so I can't really celebrate

Anyway, for those who didn't get it, as I mentioned before, this is my second attempt and my first was 67.20. If you plan to resubmit, read and carefully listen to the weaknesses and strengths is my only advice!

[Shathlia]

Anyone from GF-SOC? No email and nothing on the website...freaking out

Yes, me. I just got the notification email.

[Mary_dramaqueen]

Anyone from GF-SOC? No email and nothing on the website...freaking out

Yes, me. I just got the notification email.

Ok it is matter of time tho. Are you able to find anything on your page? Thanks

[wait_for_w8...]

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!

Hey, where you can find the placement in the ranking of your proposal?