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

[Fu Manchu]

That sucks, sorry! Did you get any reasons as to why you got 4.1 for impact this time?

Two comments. One about my future career that is not well developed and other that I was not convincing enough about the impact in a specific thing. I addressed a few aspects on both, but they want something "convincing". Actually, convicing was something that they used a lot in the comments.

It's really hard to address every single thing that they want in just 10 pages, and of course, it also depends on how lucky you get with whoever is reviewing your application. I'm sure that you will be successful in other applications!

Thanks, mate.

I will probably make a test on this year's call and send the exact same proposal. I dont have the energy to work for free on that anymore. Lets how it goes...

[Abz]

Has there been a successful result yet?

[oldchap]

Has there been a successful result yet?

If you look into the google sheet link, there is already a winner for the fellowship.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =782972678

[pkourtes]

Rejection letter received.
SOC - Magic Link: Evaluation - Score (really low): 55.80%
Note that this time I had gone through training (by the host) and the proposal was reviewed by 4 academics,
and 3 time by the local Horizon office. Last time, two years ago, a very similar proposal got 74, without any training or help.
This time I had addressed all the comments from the first time and used all the signposting and tricks to notify the evaluator where is every information required based on their evaluation manual (local Horizon officer is an evaluator herself). The most disappointing is that the feedback does not make sense, since they say what I said in the proposal (e.g., this method has scarcely been used in this population despite its promising effects-evidence. We will do this and that to implement it effectively in this population (i.e., this was one of the aims). Also, I dedicated one paragraph for explaining the consideration of gender (while it is out of scope of aims) and the report says that I did not consider Gender.

I had received such an unconstructive review, a year and a half ago, from a 2nd trier journal. Because the comments did not make sense, I just made some small changes for things that made sense and I submitted to a top trier journal (of my field), and I got minor revision (and then acceptance).

Why I am saying this? Just to further highlight that (as someone else said) the whole MSCA procedure is just a lottery, if they like your idea or not. The truth is that you should be as innovative as the potential evaluators can be ("innovative", but not really innovative). I will send the same project to ERCIM to try my luck with the IT guys, because the psychologists (I am one of them) are too technologically illiterate.

I wish to all you to get your desired funding, and if not, at least to receive some decent feedback to help you with improving your project idea.
Fingers crossed for the best result.

[Tingting]

SOC just received the result, 92. 6. In reserve list…Guys pray for me.

[Abz]

Very sorry to hear this.

Rejection letter received.
SOC - Magic Link: Evaluation - Score (really low): 55.80%
Note that this time I had gone through training (by the host) and the proposal was reviewed by 4 academics,
and 3 time by the local Horizon office. Last time, two years ago, a very similar proposal got 74, without any training or help.
This time I had addressed all the comments from the first time and used all the signposting and tricks to notify the evaluator where is every information required based on their evaluation manual (local Horizon officer is an evaluator herself). The most disappointing is that the feedback does not make sense, since they say what I said in the proposal (e.g., this method has scarcely been used in this population despite its promising effects-evidence. We will do this and that to implement it effectively in this population (i.e., this was one of the aims). Also, I dedicated one paragraph for explaining the consideration of gender (while it is out of scope of aims) and the report says that I did not consider Gender.

I had received such an unconstructive review, a year and a half ago, from a 2nd trier journal. Because the comments did not make sense, I just made some small changes for things that made sense and I submitted to a top trier journal (of my field), and I got minor revision (and then acceptance).

Why I am saying this? Just to further highlight that (as someone else said) the whole MSCA procedure is just a lottery, if they like your idea or not. The truth is that you should be as innovative as the potential evaluators can be ("innovative", but not really innovative). I will send the same project to ERCIM to try my luck with the IT guys, because the psychologists (I am one of them) are too technologically illiterate.

I wish to all you to get your desired funding, and if not, at least to receive some decent feedback to help you with improving your project idea.
Fingers crossed for the best result.

[flight75]

Just a got a positive result 95%

[Mar2022]

Just a got a positive result 95%

Congratulations

[4degrees]

Rejection letter received.
SOC - Magic Link: Evaluation - Score (really low): 55.80%
Note that this time I had gone through training (by the host) and the proposal was reviewed by 4 academics,
and 3 time by the local Horizon office. Last time, two years ago, a very similar proposal got 74, without any training or help.
This time I had addressed all the comments from the first time and used all the signposting and tricks to notify the evaluator where is every information required based on their evaluation manual (local Horizon officer is an evaluator herself). The most disappointing is that the feedback does not make sense, since they say what I said in the proposal (e.g., this method has scarcely been used in this population despite its promising effects-evidence. We will do this and that to implement it effectively in this population (i.e., this was one of the aims). Also, I dedicated one paragraph for explaining the consideration of gender (while it is out of scope of aims) and the report says that I did not consider Gender.

I had received such an unconstructive review, a year and a half ago, from a 2nd trier journal. Because the comments did not make sense, I just made some small changes for things that made sense and I submitted to a top trier journal (of my field), and I got minor revision (and then acceptance).

Why I am saying this? Just to further highlight that (as someone else said) the whole MSCA procedure is just a lottery, if they like your idea or not. The truth is that you should be as innovative as the potential evaluators can be ("innovative", but not really innovative). I will send the same project to ERCIM to try my luck with the IT guys, because the psychologists (I am one of them) are too technologically illiterate.

I wish to all you to get your desired funding, and if not, at least to receive some decent feedback to help you with improving your project idea.
Fingers crossed for the best result.

That's so frustrating. I've had the same experience with journal submissions as well, so I feel for you. Good luck with submitting to ERCIM!

[4degrees]

Just a got a positive result 95%

Yesss! Congratulations!