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

[Irene_21]

Good morning guys and congratulations to the winners ! Do you know how i can start the appeal process? As you might understand i failed

Good morning, as far as i read the forum it must be started within 30 days after rejection is received by your superwisor, in rejection email is stated how to do it....

[10000790]

I am in Reserve list of RI with score=92.2 but cutoff=92.4
Please, suggest me if any chance of funding

[Torello]

Do the appeal or re-evaluation really work?
I was in SE and got 75.2, exactly as Dreamer said.

Impact and Implementation were pretty good (4.4 and 4.2); Excellence was only 3.2.

The reviewer(s) found many strength points and few weaknesses, most of which I disagree with. One was about gender related aspects, but my proposed work was mostly on biochemistry so I even pointed out in the proposal that gender aspects were not relevant.
The other is the level of novelty, saying that I'm going to apply a technique that is broadly used by many labs, which 1) is not true, 2) the novelty should be on the question addressed and how you address, together.

I know it is hard to swallow the bitter pill, but I found the reviewer comments quite unfair.

[MSCA_ENG20]

From the trainings I had, the advice was always clear as to the appeals: "don't do it" (unless for formal things like your proposal was evaluated as someone else's, wrong eligibility checks,...).

[Little_Venice]

Your need to contact your NCP and they will tell you your place on the waitlist. If you are first or second, you will probably be offered a place, even though it may take a few months. 5-10 is a grey zone, you may or may not get lucky this particular year. I was once 40th and the NCP told me right away that I have no chance.

Re: appealing, I haven't checked updated regulations but when I looked into this a couple of years ago it was not possible to appeal on substantive grounds (when you disagree with reviewers or when a reviewer is factually incorrect), only on technical (the reviews are about someone else's proposal, that kind of technical error). And even if you appeal, there is no guarantee you won't be given a lower score. So it may be better to try again next year.

I am in Reserve list of RI with score=92.2 but cutoff=92.4
Please, suggest me if any chance of funding

[fumagalli]

ENV-ST, got a 84 (just shy of the SoE...) with 3.8/4.3/5.0

So yeah getting a perfect Gantt chart is possible but clearly not enough :p

Like others I have conflicting reviews, I think one or two reviewers really liked my project and one simply look for bogus excuses to reject it. Two examples:

Strength:

- The proposed dissemination measures towards the academic community are relevant and diverse and are realistically planned, to reach the large climate community. The role of the researcher is well presented.
- The project will have high impact on the forecasting of tropical cyclones, valuable to meteorological centers.

Weakness:

- The proposal does not adequately consider how the results could be disseminated to additional, non-academic stakeholders. It is not clear what audiences are targeted by the measures described in the proposal. Moreover, important stakeholders as meteorological organizations or agencies are not specifically considered as potential beneficiaries of the project outcomes.

Another strength:

- Both the host institution and the researcher will obtain new scientific and technical skills. The researcher will acquire a large amount of new knowledge in the field of meteorology, weather modeling and climate dynamics. The knowledge transfer will be organized in various relevant ways. A very clear training in scientific subjects, consisting of specific courses and a summer school, is presented that can ensure knowledge is transferred to the researcher.

A contradicting weakness:

- The proposal fails to describe how the training in transferable skills (e.g. supervising, teaching) will actually place.

I dont know what to make of this??

[Capone]

Do the appeal or re-evaluation really work?
I was in SE and got 75.2, exactly as Dreamer said.

Impact and Implementation were pretty good (4.4 and 4.2); Excellence was only 3.2.

The reviewer(s) found many strength points and few weaknesses, most of which I disagree with. One was about gender related aspects, but my proposed work was mostly on biochemistry so I even pointed out in the proposal that gender aspects were not relevant.
The other is the level of novelty, saying that I'm going to apply a technique that is broadly used by many labs, which 1) is not true, 2) the novelty should be on the question addressed and how you address, together.

I know it is hard to swallow the bitter pill, but I found the reviewer comments quite unfair.

I also got some comments regarding gender issues... But my proposal is about bone regeneration. I actually mentioned that women suffer some bone related diseases more often than men and i gave a couple of statistics. What else could I have writen?
Also, did you use any successful SE proposal that you could share? I'm thinking of applying to SE panel next year!

[Little_Venice]

I lost some points in my first application because I failed to address the gender aspect. The user guidelines clearly instructed to address gender issues IF those are relevant, and for me they were not. The second time around I briefly mentioned that the gender aspects are not relevant - in fact, my entire research idea was to unpack collective cultural beliefs irrespective of gender/age/etc. Again, I got a critical comment about the research "potentially benefitting from having a gender dimension" and points were deducted. In the winning proposal I included the gender dimension into the research design and included two paragraphs about it. I don't think the gender dimension is crucial for my research, but at the end of the day, it may benefit it. It's another complexity which, I, personally, would rather not add as my focus lies elsewhere, but now I have to do it.

Do the appeal or re-evaluation really work?
I was in SE and got 75.2, exactly as Dreamer said.

Impact and Implementation were pretty good (4.4 and 4.2); Excellence was only 3.2.

The reviewer(s) found many strength points and few weaknesses, most of which I disagree with. One was about gender related aspects, but my proposed work was mostly on biochemistry so I even pointed out in the proposal that gender aspects were not relevant.
The other is the level of novelty, saying that I'm going to apply a technique that is broadly used by many labs, which 1) is not true, 2) the novelty should be on the question addressed and how you address, together.

I know it is hard to swallow the bitter pill, but I found the reviewer comments quite unfair.

I also got some comments regarding gender issues... But my proposal is about bone regeneration. I actually mentioned that women suffer some bone related diseases more often than men and i gave a couple of statistics. What else could I have writen?
Also, did you use any successful SE proposal that you could share? I'm thinking of applying to SE panel next year!

[Torello]

Then next time I will include a couple more paragraphs about gender issues (even if they are not relevant in my case)... something like we will evaluate and test whether difference exist between genders, in our analysis. That should do, you think?

I lost some points in my first application because I failed to address the gender aspect. The user guidelines clearly instructed to address gender issues IF those are relevant, and for me they were not. The second time around I briefly mentioned that the gender aspects are not relevant - in fact, my entire research idea was to unpack collective cultural beliefs irrespective of gender/age/etc. Again, I got a critical comment about the research "potentially benefitting from having a gender dimension" and points were deducted. In the winning proposal I included the gender dimension into the research design and included two paragraphs about it. I don't think the gender dimension is crucial for my research, but at the end of the day, it may benefit it. It's another complexity which, I, personally, would rather not add as my focus lies elsewhere, but now I have to do it.

Do the appeal or re-evaluation really work?
I was in SE and got 75.2, exactly as Dreamer said.

Impact and Implementation were pretty good (4.4 and 4.2); Excellence was only 3.2.

The reviewer(s) found many strength points and few weaknesses, most of which I disagree with. One was about gender related aspects, but my proposed work was mostly on biochemistry so I even pointed out in the proposal that gender aspects were not relevant.
The other is the level of novelty, saying that I'm going to apply a technique that is broadly used by many labs, which 1) is not true, 2) the novelty should be on the question addressed and how you address, together.

I know it is hard to swallow the bitter pill, but I found the reviewer comments quite unfair.

I also got some comments regarding gender issues... But my proposal is about bone regeneration. I actually mentioned that women suffer some bone related diseases more often than men and i gave a couple of statistics. What else could I have writen?
Also, did you use any successful SE proposal that you could share? I'm thinking of applying to SE panel next year!

[Torello]

I did not use any successful SE template.
But I attended courses for proposal submission.
My first attempt, ex novo

Do the appeal or re-evaluation really work?
I was in SE and got 75.2, exactly as Dreamer said.

Impact and Implementation were pretty good (4.4 and 4.2); Excellence was only 3.2.

The reviewer(s) found many strength points and few weaknesses, most of which I disagree with. One was about gender related aspects, but my proposed work was mostly on biochemistry so I even pointed out in the proposal that gender aspects were not relevant.
The other is the level of novelty, saying that I'm going to apply a technique that is broadly used by many labs, which 1) is not true, 2) the novelty should be on the question addressed and how you address, together.

I know it is hard to swallow the bitter pill, but I found the reviewer comments quite unfair.

I also got some comments regarding gender issues... But my proposal is about bone regeneration. I actually mentioned that women suffer some bone related diseases more often than men and i gave a couple of statistics. What else could I have writen?
Also, did you use any successful SE proposal that you could share? I'm thinking of applying to SE panel next year!