2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)

[alherpo]

New maintenance for half an hour...

[dw2022]

Good morning y'all
The tension is getting higher and the time till the announcement seems like an eternity
I don't want to be party pooper here, but since we all keep visiting the forum even though we want to remain calm and stay as far as possible from speculation, why don't we discuss something of greater importance, like how did you really write your proposal, how long was your state-of-the art, did you use a graphic for your research design (in SOC for instance), did you assess risks in a table or in text, how did you cover the gender aspect if gender was irrelevant for your project, how many WP did you have, did you do a coloured Gantt chart etc. You know, things like that. These are questions that I'm still preoccupied with as I am already trying to rewrite my next year's proposal in my head.

if by state of the art you mean the very first part of B1 (before "sounds of proposed methodology", mine was about 1.5 pgs. I did use a couple of figures to illustrate the different experiments (I was strongly advised to do this by people who have read over this type of project), 4 work packages, risks in table and coloured Gantt chart And I'm in SOC

SOC here, too:
I only have three figures and one gantt table. Well, if the photo of my host also counts, then I have four

I put state-of-the-art & objectives (and overview of the action) on page 1, with another paragraph addressing the originality and novelty on page 2.

page 2-4 I introduced the experimental design (three studies with one figure for each, illustrating paradigm designs), and gender dimension & other diversity aspects(relevant to my project), and open science practice.

page 5 has another paragraph on the data management plan (FAIR principles).

Page 5-6 addresses the scientific achievement of the host, training-through-research plan, two-way knowledge transfer, and my professional experience (until the beginning of page 7). And the "Excellence" part ends (ca. 6.4 pages).

Page 7-9 is on "Impact" (ca. 1.9 pages) incl. short-term and long-term impact on my career, dissemination plan (scientific community and public-at-large), expect scientific impact and societal/economic impact.

Page 9-10 is on "Implementation" (ca. 1.7 pages) starting from several WPs (one study each and scientific/public dissemination, etc) and a colored gantt chart making timeline/deliverables/milestone/etc, some brief justification on the appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources, and risk assessment plan. The last part is hosting arrangement and Quality and capacity of the participating organizations.

[ririanna]

SOC here as well. I didn't use illustrations in mine - i tried to but i'm better with words than visualizing. My host gave me a couple of successful SOC proposals for reference and a lot of them actually didn't use them either. One of them didn't even bother to break up the text with paragraph breaks or tables or anything, it actually seemed pretty crowded. But it got funded anyway! And another one that used a lot of graphics was really cool and colorful - it was on sci fi - and that got funded too.

I guess mine is in between, with some tables and a colored gantt chart.

Was my first time writing a grant proposal application and I have to say it really is a whole genre of its own!

[anonymous_insider]

Post by ENV2021 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:30 pm

Hi there,
a friend of mine is an MC evaluator and I would like to share with you what he explained to me about the evaluation process.
Three evaluators per proposal plus a chair that supervises the process. Each evaluator may evaluate a few proposals (10-15).
Each evaluator produces a report individually without sharing his comments; only when the three evaluators have submitted their reports it starts a consensus phase when the evaluators discuss their comments about the proposal. When they reach a consensus, and only then, they propose the score, always under the supervision of the chair. They are not allowed to see the evaluation report of the previous submitted proposal (if any) nor to know the old score, actually, this report remains undisclosed; the chair may ask the evaluators to rediscuss specific points if he considers it necessary.
Evaluators have to follow a specific point list and that is why it is so important to fill out the proposal including each and every point specified in the guideline, being specific, concrete. And you have to say the right things where they are expected to be in the proposal, not elsewhere in the text. If you state something in the "excellence" part that should have been stated in the "impact" part, well...that is your fault.
Regarding the CV, effectively the number of papers doesn't care, as it said in the guideline you may be penalised only if according to your research career you have not produced enough; evaluators check your CV to have an idea of what you have done before, especially to determine if your training programme is appropriate and if you effectively are going to learn something new which is the most important thing in this fellowship, besides project excellence. He also told me that many of the projects he reviewed were excellent but even in this case if you fail addressing all and each point they have to start to decrease the score, and few tenths of a point means getting or not the fellowship or even getting a bad score.
Said that..of course, subjectivity is impossible to remove but at least I think this is the most well-designed evaluation process I know.

Dig out a post from 2019 (page 63), might be inspiring somehow

This is the most useful thing to understand. Way more important than the famous magic link (in my personal opinion and experience). It also makes the point about possible delays in sending the ESR.
Namely, since there must be 3 evaluators submitting an IER (1) it's not easy to find the required number of experts, (2) some experts may become overloaded because of their broad competences, (3) at some point some expert might withdraw (lack of time, conflict of interest) or might be revoked for an emerging conflict of interest. This to say that the remote evaluation phase (step 1 to produce 3 IERs/proprosal) will take time and it's the phase that causes the major bottleneck.
Once all the IERs are in place, the consensus panel establishes the final scores and from there they rank the proposals from the highest to the lowest score. Meaning that all the proposals are ranked, hence if our proposal is now in 'ranking' mode in the magic link, it means that the evaluation has been completed and the EC is ranking the proposals. The cut-off score for funding depends on the available budget.
Another fundamental point is respecting the template and placing the relevant information exactly where it is expected to be, possibly using bold for specific keywords that are part of the evaluation questionnaire. Remote evaluators are not given much time (in general, less than 1 working day per proposal); and as meticulous as they may be, some information might remain unnoticed or be perceived as unconvincing. The worst case is when information is misplaced. Remote evaluators need to answer specific points in a questionnaire and if the info related to one sub-criterion e.g. of excellence was written in impact, they must evaluate the sub-criterion according to the information at hand.
I hope this helps

[dw2022]

SOC here as well. I didn't use illustrations in mine - i tried to but i'm better with words than visualizing. My host gave me a couple of successful SOC proposals for reference and a lot of them actually didn't use them either. One of them didn't even bother to break up the text with paragraph breaks or tables or anything, it actually seemed pretty crowded. But it got funded anyway! And another one that used a lot of graphics was really cool and colorful - it was on sci fi - and that got funded too.

I guess mine is in between, with some tables and a colored gantt chart.

Was my first time writing a grant proposal application and I have to say it really is a whole genre of its own!

I also got one from my host which also looks quite.. even... messy, I would say but get funded. perhaps RI is less competitive than EF. However, a big advantage of this proposal or feeling of me reading it through is, very confident in addressing the project, very novel in the idea, and breaking things into details (which can be friendly for reviewers not familiar with the specific topic).
I have another one from a previous colleague and adapted much from his style as in a more organized and clean way (relatively speaking).

If I would conclude something in common given the very small amount of successful samples at hand (in comparison to the other two samples I received from friends that unfortunately failed): 1- a relatively big host (and some "exaggerating" words to say it out), 2- plans with details (e.g. training plan, knowledge transfer plan, dissemination plan, risk-control plan), 3- a relatively strong personal background (and some "exaggerating" words to say it out), 4- a clear expression of the impact on career development, 5- necessary highlights to guide the reviewers quickly get the merit & take-home message of your proposal.

[KathyHappy]

To be honest, I'm trying not to... but it's complicated...

Folks, please. I believe it doesn't make any sense guessing from some random clues. Let's try to don't speculate on that and wait. We'll receive the results soon.

I think we should turn this forum into a networking experience. Shall we hang out after the results are out? It would be super cool to know in what people is working!

Tissue mechanics from London here!

Sounds fun

[aspil]

If I would conclude something in common given the very small amount of successful samples at hand (in comparison to the other two samples I received from friends that unfortunately failed): 1- a relatively big host (and some "exaggerating" words to say it out), 2- plans with details (e.g. training plan, knowledge transfer plan, dissemination plan, risk-control plan), 3- a relatively strong personal background (and some "exaggerating" words to say it out), 4- a clear expression of the impact on career development, 5- necessary highlights to guide the reviewers quickly get the merit & take-home message of your proposal.

I'd add 'economic/real-world impact' to this, especially if you are in ENG panel. That was a weakness highlighted in my previous two submissions.

[fourtimesfailedmsca]

Still in Evaluation
Anyone in my situation?
I have asked for an extra stay in the insdustrial sector...I wonder if it was a mistake, as more funding is required. I cannot help thinking about all mistake I might have done...I am very sad as I was hoping to pass at least 70 point (this is my last chance because of the restriction timing after PhD). I was sure I was not getting it but I feel like shit that I did not reach the threshold.

Last year I was also in evaluation, 66 points.

[dw2022]

Post by ENV2021 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:30 pm

Hi there,
a friend of mine is an MC evaluator and I would like to share with you what he explained to me about the evaluation process.
Three evaluators per proposal plus a chair that supervises the process. Each evaluator may evaluate a few proposals (10-15).
Each evaluator produces a report individually without sharing his comments; only when the three evaluators have submitted their reports it starts a consensus phase when the evaluators discuss their comments about the proposal. When they reach a consensus, and only then, they propose the score, always under the supervision of the chair. They are not allowed to see the evaluation report of the previous submitted proposal (if any) nor to know the old score, actually, this report remains undisclosed; the chair may ask the evaluators to rediscuss specific points if he considers it necessary.
Evaluators have to follow a specific point list and that is why it is so important to fill out the proposal including each and every point specified in the guideline, being specific, concrete. And you have to say the right things where they are expected to be in the proposal, not elsewhere in the text. If you state something in the "excellence" part that should have been stated in the "impact" part, well...that is your fault.
Regarding the CV, effectively the number of papers doesn't care, as it said in the guideline you may be penalised only if according to your research career you have not produced enough; evaluators check your CV to have an idea of what you have done before, especially to determine if your training programme is appropriate and if you effectively are going to learn something new which is the most important thing in this fellowship, besides project excellence. He also told me that many of the projects he reviewed were excellent but even in this case if you fail addressing all and each point they have to start to decrease the score, and few tenths of a point means getting or not the fellowship or even getting a bad score.
Said that..of course, subjectivity is impossible to remove but at least I think this is the most well-designed evaluation process I know.

Dig out a post from 2019 (page 63), might be inspiring somehow

This is the most useful thing to understand. Way more important than the famous magic link (in my personal opinion and experience). It also makes the point about possible delays in sending the ESR.
Namely, since there must be 3 evaluators submitting an IER (1) it's not easy to find the required number of experts, (2) some experts may become overloaded because of their broad competences, (3) at some point some expert might withdraw (lack of time, conflict of interest) or might be revoked for an emerging conflict of interest. This to say that the remote evaluation phase (step 1 to produce 3 IERs/proprosal) will take time and it's the phase that causes the major bottleneck.
Once all the IERs are in place, the consensus panel establishes the final scores and from there they rank the proposals from the highest to the lowest score. Meaning that all the proposals are ranked, hence if our proposal is now in 'ranking' mode in the magic link, it means that the evaluation has been completed and the EC is ranking the proposals. The cut-off score for funding depends on the available budget.
Another fundamental point is respecting the template and placing the relevant information exactly where it is expected to be, possibly using bold for specific keywords that are part of the evaluation questionnaire. Remote evaluators are not given much time (in general, less than 1 working day per proposal); and as meticulous as they may be, some information might remain unnoticed or be perceived as unconvincing. The worst case is when information is misplaced. Remote evaluators need to answer specific points in a questionnaire and if the info related to one sub-criterion e.g. of excellence was written in impact, they must evaluate the sub-criterion according to the information at hand.
I hope this helps

Thanks for the add-on!
I think strategically this is indeed crucial for msca evaluation: “respecting the template and placing the relevant information exactly where it is expected to be, possibly using bold for specific keywords that are part of the evaluation questionnaire”

[CatTaotao]

Still in Evaluation
Anyone in my situation?
I have asked for an extra stay in the insdustrial sector...I wonder if it was a mistake, as more funding is required. I cannot help thinking about all mistake I might have done...I am very sad as I was hoping to pass at least 70 point (this is my last chance because of the restriction timing after PhD). I was sure I was not getting it but I feel like shit that I did not reach the threshold.

Last year I was also in evaluation, 66 points.

Don't be sad since we can conclude nothing until now. The phase doesn't really mean something.

Even if it does, there might be another round of 'phase changing' before the date of result releasing as in years of 2017 and 2019.

Best luck to all of us!