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

[SK_MSCA_IF_CAR]

Did anyone get rejection letters from the CAR panel?

[neurobabble]

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

I had the same issue. They basically wrote about how perfect the section was and game me a 4.8 for it. lol

[Frank198]

Thanks also go to Dreamer and DreamGirl, the results are exactly as they told.
My scores are Excellence 4.9, Impact 4.4, Implementation 3.8, it is a great pity that I did not pay enough effort in the implementation part.

[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

I had the same issue. They basically wrote about how perfect the section was and game me a 4.8 for it. lol

and for me 4.6. If they gave a perfect score in the second part, I would have reached the allowable limit. it's shameful

[Wolvy_18]

Would you know if the application format remains the same for Horizon Europe as it was for Horizon 2020?

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.

[Intution]

Thanks to dreamer team...
IF-LIF-82..4.4/3.2/4.7..

[NayeliJC]

Me too! I got 4.8 for Impact with ni weakness

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

I had the same issue. They basically wrote about how perfect the section was and game me a 4.8 for it. lol

[marsgorski]

Just received the email. It confirms the score given to me earlier by dreamgirl. It's also the lowest score I have seen on this forum: 61

Most of the comments I thought were fair and reasonable, except for one about my CV not showing potential or capacity. Clearly they don't take into account external factors such as trying to do some research while having to do a lot of teaching uninterrupted since the beginning of Master's program.

The other numbers: 3/3.5/2.5

ST-MAT first time applicant

[Intution]

Is there any post-phd year limit to submit proposal for MSCA-IF-EF-ST?

[vectorhost]

Just received my rejection letter: 90.6 ST-LIF. Thanks to Dreamer and DreamerGirl, you are the best!