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

[lyb]

Has anyone from the ENV panel had a phase change before February 2nd?
I want to know from what date the ENV panel changes started.
please help.

You could see all the information collected so far in this form and may also fill in your info.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

FYI the following link is the spreadsheet last year
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/ ... o/htmlview#

thank you. This information is from previous years.
I want to know about this year and what happened.

The first link is for this year...

[Steminist]

From Countz's message at 2018, where people got ranked in different days (they were in evaluation in early time like this year).
However later 2019-2020-2021 there was a change from submission to evaluation to ranking (and the ones had two phage changes in minutes got the fellowship). So this year no-one was able to follow submission to ranking phase. Something is different and suspicious.
----- SO from COUNTZ not from me------
I went through the pages of the 2017 thread and stopped on this page as I've already spent a lot of time on it:
http://talkacademia.com/viewtopic.php?f ... start=1350

Ranked on Jan 12:
========================
SOC-2018 = Ranked early = Rejected
ST-LIFE - Ranked Jan 12 = Rejected
ATBGF2017 = Ranked Jan 12 = Rejected
als = Ranked Jan 12 = Rejected (88.4)
RANKING = Ranked Jan 12 = Rejected (80%)
rsr = Ranked Jan 12 = Rejected
Academics_Anonymous = Jan 12 = Rejected
jezza = Jan 12 = Rejected
BB8 - Ranked Jan 12 - Reserve list
Satrius = On Jan 12 "Still in evaluation" = Accepted (maybe didn't check late enough on Jan 12 for the change)?

Ranked on Jan 24:
=========================
RedTailedHawk = Ranked Jan 20+ = Accepted
ML-ENV = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted (94%)
MSCAIF ENG 2017 = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted
ouriell = "went into ranking lately" = Accepted
erkaner = only checked ranking on Jan 28 and was ranked = Accepted
CHEM_ST = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted
aberfeldy = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted
Chem-IF = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted (Chem 95.2)
Phy-2017 = Reported Evaluation on Jan 21 = Accepted
sci'stache = Ranked jan 24 = Accepted
fun4sci = "Ranking since last week" = Accepted
Rapaz = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted
2mc2018 = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted
SOCEF-msca = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted

Remained "Submission" Phase on ranking day
=============================
MarieCuR = CHEM = Accepted

Still in evaluation until results released
=====================
Amar = Still in evaluation on Jan 29 = Rejected
all_Al = Rejected

From this, it seems to me that:
- Those ranked early do not get the grant
- Those ranked later get the grant
- Those who never get ranked don't get the grant

[SezarArj]

You could see all the information collected so far in this form and may also fill in your info.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

FYI the following link is the spreadsheet last year
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/ ... o/htmlview#

thank you. This information is from previous years.
I want to know about this year and what happened.

The first link is for this year...

How is this information collected?

[CGN]

From Countz's message at 2018, where people got ranked in different days (they were in evaluation in early time like this year).
However later 2019-2020-2021 there was a change from submission to evaluation to ranking (and the ones had two phage changes in minutes got the fellowship). So this year no-one was able to follow submission to ranking phase. Something is different and suspicious.
----- SO from COUNTZ not from me------
I went through the pages of the 2017 thread and stopped on this page as I've already spent a lot of time on it:
http://talkacademia.com/viewtopic.php?f ... start=1350

Ranked on Jan 12:
========================
SOC-2018 = Ranked early = Rejected
ST-LIFE - Ranked Jan 12 = Rejected
ATBGF2017 = Ranked Jan 12 = Rejected
als = Ranked Jan 12 = Rejected (88.4)
RANKING = Ranked Jan 12 = Rejected (80%)
rsr = Ranked Jan 12 = Rejected
Academics_Anonymous = Jan 12 = Rejected
jezza = Jan 12 = Rejected
BB8 - Ranked Jan 12 - Reserve list
Satrius = On Jan 12 "Still in evaluation" = Accepted (maybe didn't check late enough on Jan 12 for the change)?

Ranked on Jan 24:
=========================
RedTailedHawk = Ranked Jan 20+ = Accepted
ML-ENV = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted (94%)
MSCAIF ENG 2017 = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted
ouriell = "went into ranking lately" = Accepted
erkaner = only checked ranking on Jan 28 and was ranked = Accepted
CHEM_ST = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted
aberfeldy = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted
Chem-IF = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted (Chem 95.2)
Phy-2017 = Reported Evaluation on Jan 21 = Accepted
sci'stache = Ranked jan 24 = Accepted
fun4sci = "Ranking since last week" = Accepted
Rapaz = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted
2mc2018 = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted
SOCEF-msca = Ranked Jan 24 = Accepted

Remained "Submission" Phase on ranking day
=============================
MarieCuR = CHEM = Accepted

Still in evaluation until results released
=====================
Amar = Still in evaluation on Jan 29 = Rejected
all_Al = Rejected

From this, it seems to me that:
- Those ranked early do not get the grant
- Those ranked later get the grant
- Those who never get ranked don't get the grant

Yes, that's what I noticed too many years ago, they probably uploaded the results in reverse order.

[alex_CS]

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.

Honestly it is a bit imperscrutable. From what I understand, the panel approves the scores of the referees; once they approved all scores, they input them in the system; the system ranks them; the panel then discusses what to do with ex-aequo.

So it is legitimate to think that one switches to the "ranking" phase when they input the scores in the system.

But this does not explain why one changes to ranking at different times despite being in the same panel.

Another explanation is that the panel inputs data after every meeting session. This would explain the batches. If the evaluations are checked not randomly, for instance from the highest score to the lowest, this would explain also the sensation one has from reading last year's spreadsheet, that is, that those who switch to "ranking" first have on average a higher score.

Maybe, there is a timetable for inputting the evaluation into the system to avoid a system crash...

[lobo]

I really hope that the results will be inversely proportional to the stupidities you are writing in this forum about the switching the phase.

Once the evaluation is done, a score is assigned and it is inserted in an electronic ranking system. Once all the scores are collected, a computer will automatically rank the proposals. This is simply written in the official documents you shared, which makes me doubt of the average text comprehension skills of the people here, wanting to do research... The change to ranking only means that your score is ready, because the evaluation is complete.

There is absolutely no correlation on data that don't have absolutely any scientific or statistical fundament. I really hope this is not the approach you are using in your research, otherwise we are all hopeless. Otherwise, we can conclude this: x proposals were granted of people actively wrote in this forum. So there is the chance to be funded according to how often you post here. Would that make any sense for you? Fill and read the spreedsheet if you want, but please realise that you are doing wrong science while doing it, based on pure inventing data and correlations.

I understand the anxiety, and you should try to relax and think that there are other possibilities of doing your research apart for the msca. So I suggest to use this forum for sharing stories, results, anxiety, suggestions, solidarity, other grants' calls, not to do pure speculation at the limit of a conspiracy theory that will only harm all of us waiting

[XmendeleievX]

I really hope that the results will be inversely proportional to the stupidities you are writing in this forum about the switching the phase.

Once the evaluation is done, a score is assigned and it is inserted in an electronic ranking system. Once all the scores are collected, a computer will automatically rank the proposals. This is simply written in the official documents you shared, which makes me doubt of the average text comprehension skills of the people here, wanting to do research... The change to ranking only means that your score is ready, because the evaluation is complete.

There is absolutely no correlation on data that don't have absolutely any scientific or statistical fundament. I really hope this is not the approach you are using in your research, otherwise we are all hopeless. Otherwise, we can conclude this: x proposals were granted of people actively wrote in this forum. So there is the chance to be funded according to how often you post here. Would that make any sense for you? Fill and read the spreedsheet if you want, but please realise that you are doing wrong science while doing it, based on pure inventing data and correlations.

I understand the anxiety, and you should try to relax and think that there are other possibilities of doing your research apart for the msca. So I suggest to use this forum for sharing stories, results, anxiety, suggestions, solidarity, other grants' calls, not to do pure speculation at the limit of a conspiracy theory that will only harm all of us waiting

Innocent question, why would this speculation cause you any anxiety and harm if "there is absolutely no correlation on data that don't have absolutely any scientific or statistical fundament"?. Let people be mate.

[lobo]

I really hope that the results will be inversely proportional to the stupidities you are writing in this forum about the switching the phase.

Once the evaluation is done, a score is assigned and it is inserted in an electronic ranking system. Once all the scores are collected, a computer will automatically rank the proposals. This is simply written in the official documents you shared, which makes me doubt of the average text comprehension skills of the people here, wanting to do research... The change to ranking only means that your score is ready, because the evaluation is complete.

There is absolutely no correlation on data that don't have absolutely any scientific or statistical fundament. I really hope this is not the approach you are using in your research, otherwise we are all hopeless. Otherwise, we can conclude this: x proposals were granted of people actively wrote in this forum. So there is the chance to be funded according to how often you post here. Would that make any sense for you? Fill and read the spreedsheet if you want, but please realise that you are doing wrong science while doing it, based on pure inventing data and correlations.

I understand the anxiety, and you should try to relax and think that there are other possibilities of doing your research apart for the msca. So I suggest to use this forum for sharing stories, results, anxiety, suggestions, solidarity, other grants' calls, not to do pure speculation at the limit of a conspiracy theory that will only harm all of us waiting

Innocent question, why would this speculation cause you any anxiety and harm if "there is absolutely no correlation on data that don't have absolutely any scientific or statistical fundament"?. Let people be mate.

Seems clear to me that there are people reading and getting uselessy anxious about something wrong. We should be mate, in saying congratulations and don't worry if you didn't get it, there is this other grant ecc. Indeed this forum can be very useful for it.

I am worried by how convinced people, who wants to do excellent sciences, are about a wrong scientific approach and do not realise that it lacks of any basic scientific fundament...

[MSCA OPS]

I really hope that the results will be inversely proportional to the stupidities you are writing in this forum about the switching the phase.

Once the evaluation is done, a score is assigned and it is inserted in an electronic ranking system. Once all the scores are collected, a computer will automatically rank the proposals. This is simply written in the official documents you shared, which makes me doubt of the average text comprehension skills of the people here, wanting to do research... The change to ranking only means that your score is ready, because the evaluation is complete.

There is absolutely no correlation on data that don't have absolutely any scientific or statistical fundament. I really hope this is not the approach you are using in your research, otherwise we are all hopeless. Otherwise, we can conclude this: x proposals were granted of people actively wrote in this forum. So there is the chance to be funded according to how often you post here. Would that make any sense for you? Fill and read the spreedsheet if you want, but please realise that you are doing wrong science while doing it, based on pure inventing data and correlations.

I understand the anxiety, and you should try to relax and think that there are other possibilities of doing your research apart for the msca. So I suggest to use this forum for sharing stories, results, anxiety, suggestions, solidarity, other grants' calls, not to do pure speculation at the limit of a conspiracy theory that will only harm all of us waiting

Innocent question, why would this speculation cause you any anxiety and harm if "there is absolutely no correlation on data that don't have absolutely any scientific or statistical fundament"?. Let people be mate.

Seems clear to me that there are people reading and getting uselessy anxious about something wrong. We should be mate, in saying congratulations and don't worry if you didn't get it, there is this other grant ecc. Indeed this forum can be very useful for it.

I am worried by how convinced people, who wants to do excellent sciences, are about a wrong scientific approach and do not realise that it lacks of any basic scientific fundament...

no one here thinks that a small group of data voluntarily collected by strangers, out of thousands of proposals, is a scientific work... everyone lives the wait as they want, no need to get angry about it

[XmendeleievX]

I really hope that the results will be inversely proportional to the stupidities you are writing in this forum about the switching the phase.

Once the evaluation is done, a score is assigned and it is inserted in an electronic ranking system. Once all the scores are collected, a computer will automatically rank the proposals. This is simply written in the official documents you shared, which makes me doubt of the average text comprehension skills of the people here, wanting to do research... The change to ranking only means that your score is ready, because the evaluation is complete.

There is absolutely no correlation on data that don't have absolutely any scientific or statistical fundament. I really hope this is not the approach you are using in your research, otherwise we are all hopeless. Otherwise, we can conclude this: x proposals were granted of people actively wrote in this forum. So there is the chance to be funded according to how often you post here. Would that make any sense for you? Fill and read the spreedsheet if you want, but please realise that you are doing wrong science while doing it, based on pure inventing data and correlations.

I understand the anxiety, and you should try to relax and think that there are other possibilities of doing your research apart for the msca. So I suggest to use this forum for sharing stories, results, anxiety, suggestions, solidarity, other grants' calls, not to do pure speculation at the limit of a conspiracy theory that will only harm all of us waiting

Innocent question, why would this speculation cause you any anxiety and harm if "there is absolutely no correlation on data that don't have absolutely any scientific or statistical fundament"?. Let people be mate.

Seems clear to me that are people reading and getting uselessy anxious about something wrong. We should be mate, in saying congratulations and don't worry if you didn't get it, there is this other grant ecc. Indeed this forum can be very useful for it.

I am worry by how convinced people, who wants to do excellent sciences, are about a wrong scientific approach and do not realise that lacks of any basic scientific fundament...

I see, I appreciate your intention, however I would assume people here (mostly PhD holders) can judge and talk for themselves. I am the first to acknowledge that all this theories don't have any evidence at all, but I don't see that as a reason to stop pushing it. In some of my lines of research at first there is little to none evidence of success, all it takes is to find the sweet spot once for it to work!. Imagine that after proposing a lot of random theories someone connect some dots and we do find a pattern, either for this or for next years, wouldn't that be awesome? A bunch of desperate candidates hacking the cold european commission system!!. Cheers.