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

[2021]

Read the weakness of my proposal and it is rejected.

Weaknesses:
- The measures to enhance the researcher's career prospects are likely to have limited impact as regards professional maturity and
independence, beyond already acquired status (Associate Professor stage).

Is this the only weakness listed?
What is your score and panel?

Score-80, EF-PHY

[sweepytoo]

I got 92.2 and rejected in GF ENV.

Ok the score is very high...but I cannot totally understand the evaluation.
e.g. implementation: lots of strength point and the last one states: "The host institutions will provide access to high-quality infrastructure and facilities and fieldwork opportunities".
Only one Weakness which is "the description of the hosting arrangements with regard to integration in the team/institution and support services available to the researcher is limited"...which is a bit controversial compared to the previous comment.
And this cost me 0.2/5 points. Which might have helped...

This just to say: it's totally a lottery here. I'm happy for the score for sure...but when you are above certain score it is only a matter of luck. At least this i what I thihk.
I won't apply again next year. I'm not even sure where and how I could make it better...of course every project can be better but the comments are not really helpul. They are so general and not very important....

Hi, i totally agree with you, above a certain score it is totally random and pure lottery. There seems to be no link between the comments and the score, and some comments in "weakness" contradict comments made in "strength"

[aguiarea]

Did anyone from Brazil here get it? it was my second attempt (in the first I got 93.5%) and now 95%.
I was hopeless because the project was not properly reviewed, but it was approved.
I'm going to Spain on a sustainability project (chemical/food engineering).

I did! Also host in Spain! There's another fellow Brazilian also from CHE who got via ERA! 🥳🥳🥳🥳

Wow, how cool! Congrats on the approval!
I'm going to Valladolid (UVa) and you?

[evantsa]

I got 94.4 GF-ENV. I am on the reserve list. I contacted my NCP and told me that cut-off score is 95.8. This year the cut-off scores are ridiculous high. We must complain to the EC and ask for additional funding.

[skm]

Finally I accessed the evaluation letter!!! 99%!!! EF - LIF I changed 1st March 11:30 am

I will share some points in my Evaluation reports I think they can be useful for future applicants:

Excellence
Excellently written research proposal whose objectives are coherent, innovative, and very well related to the proposed methodology.
- The working hypothesis is very well supported and documented. Pertinent preliminary data are included that adds to the credibility of the
hypothesis and feasibility of the methodological approach
- The proposal is very ambitious as it has the potential to contribute to new knowledge in the research field and to the establishment of a new
model appropriate for pre-clinical trials for therapy response prediction.
- The proposal will employ an interdisciplinary approach and combines cutting-edge genomic, molecular biology, and ex vivo techniques.
- The methodologies are very well described and include relevant and precise information. The rationale and advantages of the proposed ex
vivo platform based on patient-derived explants are very well highlighted.
- The data management plan comprehensively describes how the research generated will be stored, managed and shared
- The gender dimension is a relevant consideration in the context of ovarian cancer and has been appropriately addressed
- The supervisors have excellent research track records, their expertise is very well suited to the overall focus of the project and collectively
they have excellent supervisory experience
- The scientific training the researcher will receive is of an excellent standard and specific researchers in the host institute and secondment lab
have been identified that will be responsible for training the researcher. The researcher will also receive training in many transferable skills -
grant writing, student supervision etc.
- The two-way transfer of knowledge is genuine, presented in detail, and grounded in the complementary expertise of the host and the
researcher.
- There is a very good match between the researcher's background and experience, and the proposed research. The researcher has very
appropriate scientific competencies and skills to conduct this research proposal.
-The researcher shows a remarkable and mobile career with a very good research portfolio relative to their career stage, especially in terms of
publications


Impact
- There are real and specific measures in place to enhance the career prospects and employability of the researcher - not only will they
acquire new scientific skills and transferable skills, they will also develop new collaborations and also explore new avenues of research for
their future research career
- The researcher has a defined future career plan as an independent group leader, and has carefully elucidated how this proposal will
contribute towards this aim.
- The researcher has identified scientific journals and conferences that they will publish in/attend and have also identified a suitable time frame
for these activities
- Relevant outreach activities to target different specific audiences have been described in excellent detail and a time frame for these activities
has been considered
- The proposal is expected to identify many potentially exploitable targets and relevant experience of the researcher will aid in the exploitation
of novel research results
- The proposal has the potential to make significant scientific, societal and economic impacts. Due consideration has been given to such
impacts and convincingly described with relevant data to support the claims made.

Implementation
- An excellently developed work plan has been included, divided into appropriate work packages with associated deliverables and milestones.
All have been clearly highlighted in a well organised Gantt chart
- Additional funding necessary for the execution of this ambitious proposal is secured.
- The time frame for the work plan described is appropriate although ambitious
- Several scientific and administrative risks are described in a well prepared risk management matrix, including the severity and likelihood of
each risk and promising contingency strategies.
- The quality of the host institution and secondment lab is excellent and they have the necessary infrastructure to support the research
proposal as described
- Hosting arrangements are very good with many supports in place to aid the integration of the researcher into the host institution. The host
institution has long-standing experience in hosting foreign students.

thanks.
yes these are good for developing future proposals.
at the same time, i should say, a LUCK factor should be there.
similar comment about "ambitious proposal" has been considered as "weakness" in my case. so, its a highly subjective, and purely dependent on reviewer's mood at the time of evaluation.
we don't know, how many proposals each reviewer evaluates. So, if many proposals are to be reviewed by same person, then after reading 2 or 3 he/she gets overwhelmed by the huge text and brain strain and affect the marking. hmmm... its all natural things...canot avoid.
anyway, thanks a lot for sharing the assessment text. i will save it for my proposal improvement.

[__snorlax87]

Hey guys,

Just wanted to share. Got my rejection letter (EF-SOC).

Re-applying from the 2020 call after getting 89.6 and addressing issues (all minor), on this call I got 77.2.

Luckily, some life decisions made me realize academic life is not for me, so I already got a job a few months ago. Still a bummer to receive a rejection, and on top of that, a _much lower_ score than the first time around.

Didn't even bother to check the comments yet, I think I'm done with the postdoc life and probably won't reapply in the future.

Congrats to all that received the grant, and good luck all else who didn't. Thanks for keeping the forum alive. It was my main news source on this topic since you can't trust the EC to communicate properly :p.

[jasermsc]

I got 66.8% GF-CHE and unfortunately I feel that jealous reviewers did not want me to get a great opportunity. It shows how toxic academia can be.

They write themselves " The researcher shows appropriate scientific achievements, including a strong record of publications and conference presentations, as well as teaching skills, along with a good background and professional experience on host-guest complexation. Their current experience can be enriched during this fellowship to gain professional expertise in relevant areas"

All the points they bring out are artificial and some even wrong. It is so clear that they have just "wanted to have an opinion". Makes you wonder if you should continue in academia that even though you are very good that is a problem for many people.

[trina_80]

With a score of 93.2 I've got over 20 people in front of me on the reserve list in SOC, so zero chance of getting funded. It was brutal this year...

[thelogicalgrammar]

Hi everyone!

First time poster here - I just received the news that I got the MSCA, so very happy about it! I was wondering if other folks who got it in Germany have any information about the net salary. Thank you in advance for any help!

[Fu Manchu]

Read the weakness of my proposal and it is rejected.

Weaknesses:
- The measures to enhance the researcher's career prospects are likely to have limited impact as regards professional maturity and
independence, beyond already acquired status (Associate Professor stage).

I got a very similar comment.