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

[robust_and_resilient]

got my rejection email this morning, 4.2/4.6/4.7 , overall score as given by Dreamer (thanks again!), CAR panel.

I got very few comments, nothing helpful. Excellence part - minor remarks, about the secondment hosts. Part 2 and 3 - no weaknesses, so no justification why not 5 and 5. Looks like they pushed my project 2 points below the cutoff on purpose. So unfair

congrats winners and good luck everyone!
those who didn't make it, stay robust and resilient, and probably see you here next year!

[MSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020]

got my rejection email this morning, 4.2/4.6/4.7 , overall score as given by Dreamer (thanks again!), CAR panel.

I got very few comments, nothing helpful. Excellence part - minor remarks, about the secondment hosts. Part 2 and 3 - no weaknesses, so no justification why not 5 and 5. Looks like they pushed my project 2 points below the cutoff on purpose. So unfair

congrats winners and good luck everyone!
those who didn't make it, stay robust and resilient, and probably see you here next year!

I am curious did anyone get funded with a "lower" excellence, say less than 4.3, but who got 5 and 5 in the other panels? I feel they have some internal cutoff that if the excellence is not above some arbitrary cut off they lower impact and implementation even when no weakness identified.

Just a speculation but i notice it is usually those where the science part is closer to 4 that suddenly despite no weakness in part 2 and 3 they lose points.

[sadistaz]

Hi all,

I received a rejection email this morning. However, I can't see any score.
I login to my grant page and I can download the "Rejection decision Information Letter" but still it doesn't contain any score.
In the letter, it is mentionned "Please find enclosed the evaluation summary report (ESR)". I can not see any evaluation report.

Does that happen to anyone?

[entropy123]

got my rejection email this morning, 4.2/4.6/4.7 , overall score as given by Dreamer (thanks again!), CAR panel.

I got very few comments, nothing helpful. Excellence part - minor remarks, about the secondment hosts. Part 2 and 3 - no weaknesses, so no justification why not 5 and 5. Looks like they pushed my project 2 points below the cutoff on purpose. So unfair

congrats winners and good luck everyone!
those who didn't make it, stay robust and resilient, and probably see you here next year!

I am curious did anyone get funded with a "lower" excellence, say less than 4.3, but who got 5 and 5 in the other panels? I feel they have some internal cutoff that if the excellence is not above some arbitrary cut off they lower impact and implementation even when no weakness identified.

Just a speculation but i notice it is usually those where the science part is closer to 4 that suddenly despite no weakness in part 2 and 3 they lose points.

Interesting theory. You could be right.

[robust_and_resilient]

got my rejection email this morning, 4.2/4.6/4.7 , overall score as given by Dreamer (thanks again!), CAR panel.

I got very few comments, nothing helpful. Excellence part - minor remarks, about the secondment hosts. Part 2 and 3 - no weaknesses, so no justification why not 5 and 5. Looks like they pushed my project 2 points below the cutoff on purpose. So unfair

congrats winners and good luck everyone!
those who didn't make it, stay robust and resilient, and probably see you here next year!

I am curious did anyone get funded with a "lower" excellence, say less than 4.3, but who got 5 and 5 in the other panels? I feel they have some internal cutoff that if the excellence is not above some arbitrary cut off they lower impact and implementation even when no weakness identified.

Just a speculation but i notice it is usually those where the science part is closer to 4 that suddenly despite no weakness in part 2 and 3 they lose points.

It is possible that you're right. But why they give half of score for parts 2 and 3 then? I guess everyone would be happier to rely more on a science part.

Even if it is the case, I don't think it is fair to cut 0.8 from science part due to some tangential remarks about secondment hosts, and afterwards reduce other scores to correlate with "low excellence" But it is just my anger and frustration speaking, I believe we all see how lottery-like the whole process is.

[Urbooo]

I scored only 77 in LIF, with at least one technical misunderstanding of biology from the reviewer (biology which was not within the scope of explanation as part of the application)

Quite frustrating...

[MSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020]

got my rejection email this morning, 4.2/4.6/4.7 , overall score as given by Dreamer (thanks again!), CAR panel.

I got very few comments, nothing helpful. Excellence part - minor remarks, about the secondment hosts. Part 2 and 3 - no weaknesses, so no justification why not 5 and 5. Looks like they pushed my project 2 points below the cutoff on purpose. So unfair

congrats winners and good luck everyone!
those who didn't make it, stay robust and resilient, and probably see you here next year!

I am curious did anyone get funded with a "lower" excellence, say less than 4.3, but who got 5 and 5 in the other panels? I feel they have some internal cutoff that if the excellence is not above some arbitrary cut off they lower impact and implementation even when no weakness identified.

Just a speculation but i notice it is usually those where the science part is closer to 4 that suddenly despite no weakness in part 2 and 3 they lose points.

It is possible that you're right. But why they give half of score for parts 2 and 3 then? I guess everyone would be happier to rely more on a science part.

Even if it is the case, I don't think it is fair to cut 0.8 from science part due to some tangential remarks about secondment hosts, and afterwards reduce other scores to correlate with "low excellence" But it is just my anger and frustration speaking, I believe we all see how lottery-like the whole process is.

No its BS i know, but i have noticed this pattern! I got it this year but in my excellence 0.2 points were taken away as "leadership training" was not discussed-- in the excellence part!
There was like a whole paragraph about that in Impact (where it is supposed to be), if I had not gotten it this year i would have gone crazy over the nonsense that reviewers put in there sometimes. Margins were so tight this year!

Good luck for next time!

[Tapa]

Officially got rejected with 87.4 in LIF. The score was the same as Dreamer stated before. You need to be a bit lucky as well!

[Intution]

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

Got the rejection letter...Rejected with very high score (94) in LIF. Reviewers comments were quite absurd. It sounds like they cannot fund many people and need to justify somehow why they don't fund you, if you are not lucky enough. I did not read anything about the Seal of Excellence....

Question about the new limitation, in case you know. If you got your PhD in 2013, I suppose. you cannot apply again, correct? Or, it would be the last chance since it is within thew 8 years?

Congrats to all of you who have got it and best of he luck to the others? Maybe there will be something better waiting for us..who knows

[pathg]

Got result- 90.4. Split 4.8/4.2/4.3. The comments do not make any sense.
Anyone tried `evaluation review` option? Reevaluation! , they seriously do that, does it work?