aspil wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:31 amWe have to spare a thought for the evaluators. They are given very little room on a 5-point scale. When they deal with multiple proposals which do not have any weakness, but they collectively feel that one is better than another, they may deduct some points for one of the proposals.dw2022 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:19 amI've seen another (or more) post from last year saying similar things, like "no weakness in the excellence but get 4.8/5.0" which leads to not being main-listed. Wonder who makes the final decision (on the score) because if each proposal gets min. 3 reviewers, would the reviewers all agree with reducing some points even though there is nothing to criticize?chemcps wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:08 amIn my case, I scored 85+ twice with no major weakness in the impact and implementation section and reduced 0.3 marks in each section which reduces the marks in overall value. So we can't expect positive things from the reviewer if they decided to reduce the marks.
2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)
Re: 2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)
Yes, I agree with your words. But my opinion is reducing points based on the experience of the supervisors is unacceptable.
Re: 2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)
From what I've read from previous years,and also from the document posted here, ranking means you passed the threshold, no guarantee of being granted. But there's a thread called "still evaluation" from last year in which it seems that people in evaluation did not get the grant. Also, there's the "human factor", they select new evaluators that are not familiar to the system, so it might be that those cases that were in evaluation and got the grant could be glitches in the system or simply a mistake from rapporteurs when submitting the status in the system...chemcps wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 9:54 amI don't think so. Last year my proposal went to a ranking on 29.01.2021 and it was scored above 85. Many peoples reported that their proposal went to a ranking by 03.02.2021 only.
NCP wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 9:34 amMeaning those still in Evaluation possibly didn't meet the qualifying score which can only be determined when results are released.Interstellar wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 9:29 am
At this point:
The Commission:
- produces a ranked list of proposals, including all proposals with scores above the qualifying score
- draws up a list of proposals for possible funding from that list. The number of proposals in the list depends on the available budget.
so....now "ranking" simply means that some projects have already been included in the first ranking. As they are inserted, all projects move to the first list. Then the commission goes to point 2. This is the final ranking divided by panels.
Seem like some of us already know our outcome. For the rest in ranking -- best wishes, may the best candidate win
Re: 2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)
Maybe, I am not sure.Cr@zyChem wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:30 amWe're results released before the set date in 2019?
@chemcps can you confirm?
Re: 2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)
Re: 2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)
Oh peeps!!!! This is happening!!!!! My guess, if no phase changes today, they'll release resultado to NPC tomorrow and we'll know by Monday the first results...
Oh gee, I can't get any work done...
Re: 2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)
No, in 2019 result was declared on 12/02/2019
Re: 2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)
Then...in 2019 did anyone receive ranking status on 29 of Jan finally got funded?
or almost all funded people got ranking on 3rd of Feb?
Re: 2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)
I meant the proposal submitted in 2019 and the result was announced on 4.2.2020.
Re: 2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)
yeah, I guess the evaluation process of msca (i.e. one reviewer might evaluate multiple proposals competing for the same fellowship at the same time) does not help with reducing the (already existing) randomness of reviewing process. However, given the large volume of applications, there seem no other better options.aspil wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:31 amWe have to spare a thought for the evaluators. They are given very little room on a 5-point scale. When they deal with multiple proposals which do not have any weakness, but they collectively feel that one is better than another, they may deduct some points for one of the proposals.dw2022 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:19 amI've seen another (or more) post from last year saying similar things, like "no weakness in the excellence but get 4.8/5.0" which leads to not being main-listed. Wonder who makes the final decision (on the score) because if each proposal gets min. 3 reviewers, would the reviewers all agree with reducing some points even though there is nothing to criticize?chemcps wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:08 amIn my case, I scored 85+ twice with no major weakness in the impact and implementation section and reduced 0.3 marks in each section which reduces the marks in overall value. So we can't expect positive things from the reviewer if they decided to reduce the marks.
I have obtained a postdoc scholarship and an individual grant before, neither of them is as random or one-shot game as msca as I feel. The scholarship has a two-stage (proposal evaluation + in-person interview) schedule, for the grant they rejected my initial application but allowed a revision (just like a paper that the revised proposal would be evaluated by the same reviewers).
anyway, curious to read the comments of reviewers, and fingers crossed for everyone here!!