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

[neurobabble]

So literally no one has received an acceptance letter since the morning of October 8th am I right?

[MathGuy]

Just received my rejection. First time applying (ST-MAT)

Stats
82.2%
3.8/4.5/4.3

Thoughts
I read through my reviewer's comments and I honestly felt like it was someone familiar to my field. They even went so far as to add some encouraging comments about a personal interest in my project. The weaknesses in Excellency and Impact were all valid and easily improvable for next time. The weakness points in Implementation were pure opinion.

Now that this is over, I might actually be able to sleep.

[NayeliJC]

I just recieved my rejection letter, 92.2 SOC 4.5, 4.8 (without weakness), 4.6

[blackwood]

Hi everyone, I'm new here. Found out about this forum this past weekend. First of all, congrats to all who got funding!

It's my first time applying and after waiting for the results, just got my rejection e-mail a couple of hours ago.

Panel: ST-SOC, total score: 89.6 4.5/4.3/4.7

My personal take on the evaluation is that I think it was fair. I got a few minor weaknesses listed in Excellence and Impact, no weaknesses listed in implementation. Won't lie - it's a bummer that I didn't get the fellowship, but at least I feel the evaluation results are fair.

Probably will see you guys next year!

[Wolvy_18]

Got my rejection letter with a score of 92.2 (as told by the dreamteam). I am in CHE - ST. My scores were 4.5/4.8/4.6 . I think the weakness described by the evaluators were quite vague:

Excellence (4.5) - Some objectives are not very credible/ or not detailed enough (Which objectives!??)

Impact (4.8) - The topics that will constitute the scientific production are not described sufficiently (What scientific production!?!)

Implementation (4.6) - The allocation of the first milestone with respect to the proposed fourth and fifth deliverables is not sufficiently justified. (No idea why)

Overall, I now have no idea on what I can work on for improving the proposal. This is the third time I am applying. First and second year scores were 85 and 86 respectively. The comments previously were quite helpful (on which I could work and improve). But this time I am at a loss.

[tarantula]

I received my rejection letter at 01:55 Europe time. ST-ECO, 76.2 score.
I was in ranking, but I don't know when my status switched.

Thanks for the company everybody!
Best of luck to all of you! <3

[neurobabble]

86, rejected. Not too many negative comments. Should have a more clear plan about dissementation to public and my # of papers is not very convincing for someone at my stage of career. Fair!

I guess I'm old damaged goods (clarification: I left an abusive, sociopath PI ... along with that I left the paper).

[Sam1]

Hi,
Dreamer and DreamGirl, thanks once again!
My score was just as you said.

[PetetheCat]

Got my rejection letter with a score of 92.2 (as told by the dreamteam). I am in CHE - ST. My scores were 4.5/4.8/4.6 . I think the weakness described by the evaluators were quite vague:

Excellence (4.5) - Some objectives are not very credible/ or not detailed enough (Which objectives!??)

Impact (4.8) - The topics that will constitute the scientific production are not described sufficiently (What scientific production!?!)

Implementation (4.6) - The allocation of the first milestone with respect to the proposed fourth and fifth deliverables is not sufficiently justified. (No idea why)

Overall, I now have no idea on what I can work on for improving the proposal. This is the third time I am applying. First and second year scores were 85 and 86 respectively. The comments previously were quite helpful (on which I could work and improve). But this time I am at a loss.

You could just submit the same proposal next year with some minor copy edits where you see places to improve clarity etc. and see what happens. I am now thinking that editing too much ends up working against you when you have a strong proposal already.

[SezarArj]

I received the results and now I have no doubt that this is a gamble and the opinions and scores are completely personal and baseless. Sorry for such a stupid referee. How is it possible that a complete score is not given in the part where the referee announces that there are no weaknesses?
I'm going crazy