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

[hubirai]

In my humble opinion there should be changes made to the system. For one thing, the widening scheme might be enlarged in terms of budget and including the GF. After all cou tries like Lithuania, Poland etc might benefit since they are the ones having difficulty in attracting brains, not UK, Germany, France etc. who take the lion’s share and even have their own aattractive programs nonetheless (Newton, Humboldt etc.). The overall budget itself should have been increased, not slightly, but hugely, since I do not think that there is a huge scientific gap between a project that got 91 and the othe that got 90. Perhaps it is due to the budgetary restrictions, but with an advanced budget, rewarding everyone with a score over 85 should not bankrupt EU. As in the UK’ case, they might ask the host countries to pay for the extra, but such a move will hugely draw good brains to Europe, and 85 is not a trash score in the case of MSCA. I know there are such suplementary programs in some countries that reward the ones over 85, but this is sporadic. As for these troubled times, they should have given more flexibility in the implementation since there is a pandemic and wars going on(and unfortunately there probably will be more to come, especially in East Asia). Last year in my proposal, I tried to be flexible citing these factors, my project has some field visits to Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and China, and I cited the prolonged pandemic and closed borders as well as political risks in these countries which might render the visits impossible, so I also suggested back up countries, and I got 3.4 from the implementation as a reward, with a total score of 83. Now those risks are there, and might even get worse. I actually cited a possible clash between Russia and Ukraine in my proposal, they should given me a foresight extra point this year Anyway, I also think they should havemade an official survival guide for this year, since much has changed, last year the survival guide was my only professional help and this year I could not have it for the changed sections. Let’s see the results beginning from tomorrow. Good luck to you all.

[UKR]

The war started after the evaluation was done.

In my humble opinion there should be changes made to the system. For one thing, the widening scheme might be enlarged in terms of budget and including the GF. After all cou tries like Lithuania, Poland etc might benefit since they are the ones having difficulty in attracting brains, not UK, Germany, France etc. who take the lion’s share and even have their own aattractive programs nonetheless (Newton, Humboldt etc.). The overall budget itself should have been increased, not slightly, but hugely, since I do not think that there is a huge scientific gap between a project that got 91 and the othe that got 90. Perhaps it is due to the budgetary restrictions, but with an advanced budget, rewarding everyone with a score over 85 should not bankrupt EU. As in the UK’ case, they might ask the host countries to pay for the extra, but such a move will hugely draw good brains to Europe, and 85 is not a trash score in the case of MSCA. I know there are such suplementary programs in some countries that reward the ones over 85, but this is sporadic. As for these troubled times, they should have given more flexibility in the implementation since there is a pandemic and wars going on(and unfortunately there probably will be more to come, especially in East Asia). Last year in my proposal, I tried to be flexible citing these factors, my project has some field visits to Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and China, and I cited the prolonged pandemic and closed borders as well as political risks in these countries which might render the visits impossible, so I also suggested back up countries, and I got 3.4 from the implementation as a reward, with a total score of 83. Now those risks are there, and might even get worse. I actually cited a possible clash between Russia and Ukraine in my proposal, they should given me a foresight extra point this year Anyway, I also think they should havemade an official survival guide for this year, since much has changed, last year the survival guide was my only professional help and this year I could not have it for the changed sections. Let’s see the results beginning from tomorrow. Good luck to you all.

[ririanna]

Happy Sunday, all! Hope results will come out tomorrow and end this crazy waiting period. This was the longest week ever... Have been thinking too much about my proposal and speculated some more with my husband who I'm sure is so tired of hearing me talk about it by now! Have been very unproductive too. EC needs to end this wait for us ASAP! I'm so jealous of those who know their results already via leaks

[hubirai]

Yes, and unfortunately, despite all the warnings, noone listened to Ukraine, Poland or the Baltic states when they warned about Putin, because Russian gas was sweet. Anyway, the politics aside (though I love Ukraine, this is not the place), on the practical side, I voiced my concern on this issue, if say a German guy working on Russia chose it as a destination in GF, or Ukraine in the EF, there might be discussions going on about what to do on it. But UK also seems to be the proble. However, since UK already agreed to pay for the extra winners, I think they renegotiated something.

The war started after the evaluation was done.

In my humble opinion there should be changes made to the system. For one thing, the widening scheme might be enlarged in terms of budget and including the GF. After all cou tries like Lithuania, Poland etc might benefit since they are the ones having difficulty in attracting brains, not UK, Germany, France etc. who take the lion’s share and even have their own aattractive programs nonetheless (Newton, Humboldt etc.). The overall budget itself should have been increased, not slightly, but hugely, since I do not think that there is a huge scientific gap between a project that got 91 and the othe that got 90. Perhaps it is due to the budgetary restrictions, but with an advanced budget, rewarding everyone with a score over 85 should not bankrupt EU. As in the UK’ case, they might ask the host countries to pay for the extra, but such a move will hugely draw good brains to Europe, and 85 is not a trash score in the case of MSCA. I know there are such suplementary programs in some countries that reward the ones over 85, but this is sporadic. As for these troubled times, they should have given more flexibility in the implementation since there is a pandemic and wars going on(and unfortunately there probably will be more to come, especially in East Asia). Last year in my proposal, I tried to be flexible citing these factors, my project has some field visits to Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and China, and I cited the prolonged pandemic and closed borders as well as political risks in these countries which might render the visits impossible, so I also suggested back up countries, and I got 3.4 from the implementation as a reward, with a total score of 83. Now those risks are there, and might even get worse. I actually cited a possible clash between Russia and Ukraine in my proposal, they should given me a foresight extra point this year Anyway, I also think they should havemade an official survival guide for this year, since much has changed, last year the survival guide was my only professional help and this year I could not have it for the changed sections. Let’s see the results beginning from tomorrow. Good luck to you all.

[Serendipity]

Hi everyone,

Just to change a small poll while waiting for the results, would you prefer to have a msca grant or a first author publication in a high level journal (nature, science, cell...)?

[UKR]

MSCA grant even if they say cant publish for two years.

Hi everyone,

Just to change a small poll while waiting for the results, would you prefer to have a msca grant or a first author publication in a high level journal (nature, science, cell...)?

[iteration]

I just want the money

[fique86]

Hi everyone,

Just to change a small poll while waiting for the results, would you prefer to have a msca grant or a first author publication in a high level journal (nature, science, cell...)?

Why not both? hehe

For me, I'd rather have the grant which would then lead to a, hopefully, high-impact publication in a highly reputable journal.

[hubirai]

In my field there are no such journals (history), and even if you publish in one of the most reputable journals, it does not have the impact you would have in the sciences if you publish in nature etc. so, definitely MSCa, but if you would say publishing a book from Brill or Oxford etc. then I might hesitate, but in my specific case I already have a tenure position, but I want some academic freedom and time which I do not have in my country. So publishing might be equally satisfying if we put the money aside

Hi everyone,

Just to change a small poll while waiting for the results, would you prefer to have a msca grant or a first author publication in a high level journal (nature, science, cell...)?

[linnnnnnn]

Hi everyone,

Just to change a small poll while waiting for the results, would you prefer to have a msca grant or a first author publication in a high level journal (nature, science, cell...)?

If need to choose one, MSCA.
A flagship paper mainly proves your supervisor has a good view of how the research goes and her/his contribution in the field, (while also giving you the credit of transferring ideas into results); but an MSCA and any achievement from the project tilting the balance to prove your own abilities, which is essential for a position.