2022 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2022)

[barbara22]

I was checking two ESR reports for the year 2021. I found that the issued date coincides with the change from evaluation to ranking status. I also found the one with a score of 97/100 was issued on 02/02/2021. There is a correlation between the issued date and the score—higher scores for earlier dates. Please check and share previous ESR reports to find out the trend.

Ranking_status.jpg

I looked for my old results... I don't know if we can conlcude anything really. From last year's spreadsheet I honestly think the sooner your phase changed to RANKING, the higher score you get (which leaves me hopeless ).
But looking at this I'm not so sure anymore. We just have to wait and see.

MSCA 2020.png (12.5 KiB) Viewed 1392 times

[syntactician]

I was just checking the new google spreadsheet and I have a question:
Most of the stamp dates in the table are so early...Are you sure that you have written the date from the first page of the downloaded proposal? And NOT the submission date (from the last page)?

This date should be on the first page (upper right corner) and looks like this: Ref.Ares(2022)XXXXX - DD/MM/YYYY

Maybe I am wrong and the EC could worked up most of the proposals very early but I can hardly believe it...
I submitted a day before the deadline and my datestamp is 4 day later

I don't have any Ref.Ares(2022) in my downloaded proposal

It depends on where you downloaded the proposal from. To see the stamp, you to go to *follow up*, select process documents, and download the proposal from there. If you instead downloaded it from *view submitted* then theres no time stamp there

Thanks - not that easy to find. I like how clicking on 'follow up' eventually leads you to a countdown that says '143/152 days'. Quite an effective way to raise the anxiety.

[SezarArj]

In my opinion, those who changed the phase earlier will receive more points.
But the time to review each panel is different.
Is there anyone here from the ENV panel to check the information together?

Did anyone from the ENV panel on 1 Jan see the changes?
How about today?

[Fish]

Are the results going to be relieved before 14 February..? It seems so..is it possible?

Not likely. It took them additional 10 days after the deadline last year and many people were in ranking already a month prior to that... Assume the "week of Feb 14", not the exact day

I feel the results will be announced before14th February tho...

I read somewhere they want to be organised in result announcement . I think it will be announced exactly on the 14th.

[lyb]

To me, it is intuitive from last year's spreadsheet that none of the applicants with evaluation to ranking changed on 2nd March or afternoon of 1st March was granted. To be honest, the correlation between the evaluation/ranking changing time and the winning chance is also clear in general. The two things that may challenge these conclusions were the insufficient samples and the uncertainty of the time when they checked the status.

Not true, at least two who switched to ranking later (2nd and 3rd) received the grant. In general, we are talking about an incredibly small sample—considering that last year the applications were more than 7k.

Yes there are two granted guys that are special. One guy did not check the status until 2nd March, so it could be either 1st March or 2nd March. For the other one, his/her situation was very special. He/She even did not change from submission to evaluation on 3rd March. However, still, you do not see anyone that is confirmed with status change on 2nd March or afternoon of 1st March was granted

[gogoboy]

Guys, I'm quite sure that the evaluation process works like paper reviews. The evaluators are asked to review a project. When they accept, the status changes to "Evaluation". They have a deadline. Depending on how fast they are, they upload a score/comment by this deadline. When all scores are available for a project, and the panel committee finds them suitable (i.e., not too different), the final score is assigned to the project (moving to "Ranking"). The results (ranked score list) come out when all the scores have been assigned to all projects. So passing from "Submitted" to "Evaluation" to "Ranking" only depends on the evaluator's speed to accept the review and provide feedback. For those who never passed to "Ranking", one reviewer probably never provided their evaluation, which was then completed by the committee board before publishing the results.

[goshgoshgosh]

To me, it is intuitive from last year's spreadsheet that none of the applicants with evaluation to ranking changed on 2nd March or afternoon of 1st March was granted. To be honest, the correlation between the evaluation/ranking changing time and the winning chance is also clear in general. The two things that may challenge these conclusions were the insufficient samples and the uncertainty of the time when they checked the status.

Not true, at least two who switched to ranking later (2nd and 3rd) received the grant. In general, we are talking about an incredibly small sample—considering that last year the applications were more than 7k.

Yes there are two granted guys that are special. One guy did not check the status until 2nd March, so it could be either 1st March or 2nd March. For the other one, his/her situation was very special. He/She even did not change from submission to evaluation on 3rd March. However, still, you do not see anyone that is confirmed with status change on 2nd March or afternoon of 1st March was granted

I remember very clearly from past editions that there were people who switched later and still got the grant (and vice versa).

[mnemosyne]

Guys, I'm quite sure that the evaluation process works like paper reviews. The evaluators are asked to review a project. When they accept, the status changes to "Evaluation". They have a deadline. Depending on how fast they are, they upload a score/comment by this deadline. When all scores are available for a project, and the panel committee finds them suitable (i.e., not too different), the final score is assigned to the project (moving to "Ranking"). The results (ranked score list) come out when all the scores have been assigned to all projects. So passing from "Submitted" to "Evaluation" to "Ranking" only depends on the evaluator's speed to accept the review and provide feedback. For those who never passed to "Ranking", one reviewer probably never provided their evaluation, which was then completed by the committee board before publishing the results.

Mmmh.. not quite.. I think the reviewers need to reach a consensum on the score
I quote from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130753

iii) Allocation of each proposal to a set of (at least) 3 external experts reviewers—raters—based on the best possible match between the expertise of available raters and the scientific field of the proposal (and also ensuring a fair representation of raters’ nationalities and gender balance), and checking conflicts of interest; iv) A remote evaluation phase, where raters assess the proposals allocated to them, against 4 (for ITN and IAPP) or 5 (for IEF) evaluation criteria, and draft an Individual Evaluation Report (IER) for each proposal, so that each proposal has (a minimum of) 3 IER; v) Consensus meetings organised in Brussels, in the presence of all raters. Each proposal is discussed by the 3 raters who had evaluated it remotely. One of the 3 raters, acting as a rapporteur, prepares a Consensus Report (CR), with the comments and scores commonly agreed by all 3 raters; vi) The creation of the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR), which is the final version of the CR sent to applicants. The ESR score always corresponds to the CR score.

[goshgoshgosh]

I found something that may be useful:

4. Panel review
During the panel reviews, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs are invited to perform another quality check of the
ESRs, and may adjust the comments and exceptionally the scores if duly justified and if fully endorsed by
the panel.
After Panel finalises its work, proposals are automatically ranked by the SEP system in descending order of
the total score in their respective panel ranking list. Any ex aequo cases are also discussed and resolved by
the panel before the final approval of the ranking lists by the Panel.

https://rea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2 ... Europe.pdf

[Kaepirinha]

I found something that may be useful:

4. Panel review
During the panel reviews, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs are invited to perform another quality check of the
ESRs, and may adjust the comments and exceptionally the scores if duly justified and if fully endorsed by
the panel.
After Panel finalises its work, proposals are automatically ranked by the SEP system in descending order of
the total score in their respective panel ranking list. Any ex aequo cases are also discussed and resolved by
the panel before the final approval of the ranking lists by the Panel.

https://rea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2 ... Europe.pdf

This says what the other guy: gogoboy was suggesting. The change to ranking depends on when the evaluator reviews it as it automatically goes to ranking after that...so please.. do not create anxiety regarding ranking time and success because there is no correlation.