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

[AR Khojasteh]

I just have a question. Do reviewers evaluate excellence (or any other part) by only considering its section? or do they consider the whole package and then check excellence, impact, and implementation? For example, I have some implementation discussions in the first part.

See below. Copied from 2019 forum.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Post by ENV2021 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:30 pm

Hi there,
a friend of mine is an MC evaluator and I would like to share with you what he explained to me about the evaluation process.
Three evaluators per proposal plus a chair that supervises the process. Each evaluator may evaluate a few proposals (10-15).
Each evaluator produces a report individually without sharing his comments; only when the three evaluators have submitted their reports it starts a consensus phase when the evaluators discuss their comments about the proposal. When they reach a consensus, and only then, they propose the score, always under the supervision of the chair. They are not allowed to see the evaluation report of the previous submitted proposal (if any) nor to know the old score, actually, this report remains undisclosed; the chair may ask the evaluators to rediscuss specific points if he considers it necessary.
Evaluators have to follow a specific point list and that is why it is so important to fill out the proposal including each and every point specified in the guideline, being specific, concrete. And you have to say the right things where they are expected to be in the proposal, not elsewhere in the text. If you state something in the "excellence" part that should have been stated in the "impact" part, well...that is your fault.
Regarding the CV, effectively the number of papers doesn't care, as it said in the guideline you may be penalised only if according to your research career you have not produced enough; evaluators check your CV to have an idea of what you have done before, especially to determine if your training programme is appropriate and if you effectively are going to learn something new which is the most important thing in this fellowship, besides project excellence. He also told me that many of the projects he reviewed were excellent but even in this case if you fail addressing all and each point they have to start to decrease the score, and few tenths of a point means getting or not the fellowship or even getting a bad score.
Said that..of course, subjectivity is impossible to remove but at least I think this is the most well-designed evaluation process I know.

Thank you for the response. The university funding advisor recommended creating links between sections. So it was somehow impossible not to mention some implementation or impact discussions in the excellence part. I totally agree that we should ease the evaluation process for the reviewers. Every detail should be found in the right order. But connections are also important to have a concrete story at the end.

[CGN]

I just have a question. Do reviewers evaluate excellence (or any other part) by only considering its section? or do they consider the whole package and then check excellence, impact, and implementation? For example, I have some implementation discussions in the first part.

See below. Copied from 2019 forum.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Post by ENV2021 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:30 pm

Hi there,
a friend of mine is an MC evaluator and I would like to share with you what he explained to me about the evaluation process.
Three evaluators per proposal plus a chair that supervises the process. Each evaluator may evaluate a few proposals (10-15).
Each evaluator produces a report individually without sharing his comments; only when the three evaluators have submitted their reports it starts a consensus phase when the evaluators discuss their comments about the proposal. When they reach a consensus, and only then, they propose the score, always under the supervision of the chair. They are not allowed to see the evaluation report of the previous submitted proposal (if any) nor to know the old score, actually, this report remains undisclosed; the chair may ask the evaluators to rediscuss specific points if he considers it necessary.
Evaluators have to follow a specific point list and that is why it is so important to fill out the proposal including each and every point specified in the guideline, being specific, concrete. And you have to say the right things where they are expected to be in the proposal, not elsewhere in the text. If you state something in the "excellence" part that should have been stated in the "impact" part, well...that is your fault.
Regarding the CV, effectively the number of papers doesn't care, as it said in the guideline you may be penalised only if according to your research career you have not produced enough; evaluators check your CV to have an idea of what you have done before, especially to determine if your training programme is appropriate and if you effectively are going to learn something new which is the most important thing in this fellowship, besides project excellence. He also told me that many of the projects he reviewed were excellent but even in this case if you fail addressing all and each point they have to start to decrease the score, and few tenths of a point means getting or not the fellowship or even getting a bad score.
Said that..of course, subjectivity is impossible to remove but at least I think this is the most well-designed evaluation process I know.

Thank you for the response. The university funding advisor recommended creating links between sections. So it was somehow impossible not to mention some implementation or impact discussions in the excellence part. I totally agree that we should ease the evaluation process for the reviewers. Every detail should be found in the right order. But connections are also important to have a concrete story at the end.

Yes, every expert in grant writing is suggesting the same as your university funding advisor. That's exactly what is taught in different courses on grant writing.

[lyb]

How are you everyone? I guess the incoming week would be a tough and struggling week for many of us. While waiting for this result, I need to submit two applications with lots of documents as the school deadline is 8th Feb. and 15th Feb., respectively. Really hope it could be announced tomorrow, then we can focus on the right next steps worthy of investing time...

[pav]

How are you everyone? I guess the incoming week would be a tough and struggling week for many of us. While waiting for this result, I need to submit two applications with lots of documents as the school deadline is 8th Feb. and 15th Feb., respectively. Really hope it could be announced tomorrow, then we can focus on the right next steps worthy of investing time...

Totally agree. My other application deadline is on Feb 14 and I really don't want to waste time on it. There is maintenance on the Portal website tomorrow from 8 am. So it could mean that the results are coming early. But I'm not hopeful at all... Last year's maintenance happened about a week before the results.

[lyb]

How are you everyone? I guess the incoming week would be a tough and struggling week for many of us. While waiting for this result, I need to submit two applications with lots of documents as the school deadline is 8th Feb. and 15th Feb., respectively. Really hope it could be announced tomorrow, then we can focus on the right next steps worthy of investing time...

Totally agree. My other application deadline is on Feb 14 and I really don't want to waste time on it. There is maintenance on the Portal website tomorrow from 8 am. So it could mean that the results are coming early. But I'm not hopeful at all... Last year's maintenance happened about a week before the results.

Sometimes I wonder whether these great scientists, like Marie Curie, have ever experienced or would like to see situations like this. People invest so much time in applying for funds from various bodies because of the long waiting and high chance of failing...

[Fish]

How are you everyone? I guess the incoming week would be a tough and struggling week for many of us. While waiting for this result, I need to submit two applications with lots of documents as the school deadline is 8th Feb. and 15th Feb., respectively. Really hope it could be announced tomorrow, then we can focus on the right next steps worthy of investing time...

I have the same problem and is hard to focus and keep applying!! Unfortunately, it looks like they will not report it sooner than the 14th .

[CGN]

How are you everyone? I guess the incoming week would be a tough and struggling week for many of us. While waiting for this result, I need to submit two applications with lots of documents as the school deadline is 8th Feb. and 15th Feb., respectively. Really hope it could be announced tomorrow, then we can focus on the right next steps worthy of investing time...

I applied to 2 assistant professor positions. Tomorrow I have the second interview. The results will come together with the MSCA results. I was also asked to apply to another position abroad, with a very long process (tons of teaching/research statements and such). I am also organizings 2 panels in 2 different conferencs and I am waiting for the reviews of a couple of papers. So I would say that it's a very stressful time

[PHSeal]

How are you everyone? I guess the incoming week would be a tough and struggling week for many of us. While waiting for this result, I need to submit two applications with lots of documents as the school deadline is 8th Feb. and 15th Feb., respectively. Really hope it could be announced tomorrow, then we can focus on the right next steps worthy of investing time...

I applied to 2 assistant professor positions. Tomorrow I have the second interview. The results will come together with the MSCA results. I was also asked to apply to another position abroad, with a very long process (tons of teaching/research statements and such). I am also organizings 2 panels in 2 different conferencs and I am waiting for the reviews of a couple of papers. So I would say that it's a very stressful time

So if you get the MC, will you drop these opportunities? I guess for the MC, you’ll have to move in a new country, right? The agony of waiting is horrible, I know, but this is what makes our life as scientists interesting and full of excitement!

[CGN]

How are you everyone? I guess the incoming week would be a tough and struggling week for many of us. While waiting for this result, I need to submit two applications with lots of documents as the school deadline is 8th Feb. and 15th Feb., respectively. Really hope it could be announced tomorrow, then we can focus on the right next steps worthy of investing time...

I applied to 2 assistant professor positions. Tomorrow I have the second interview. The results will come together with the MSCA results. I was also asked to apply to another position abroad, with a very long process (tons of teaching/research statements and such). I am also organizings 2 panels in 2 different conferencs and I am waiting for the reviews of a couple of papers. So I would say that it's a very stressful time

So if you get the MC, will you drop these opportunities? I guess for the MC, you’ll have to move in a new country, right? The agony of waiting is horrible, I know, but this is what makes our life as scientists interesting and full of excitement!

Luckily, I moved back when I decided to submit the MSCA proposal, so I don't have to move I cannot move permanently anyway, as I have two sons, one of them with special needs, and a husband who is tenured here.

I don't think I will get the MSCA, but if I am lucky enough, I will try to do it part time.

[KathyHappy]

Hi guys (gender neutral one),

I strongly suggest to everybody read the following:
In the documents of MCSA, there are two docs where the evaluation procedure is described.
https://rea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2 ... Europe.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tende ... _he_en.pdf

Understanding the procedure will assist you with understanding the magic link mystery.

Based on my humble opinion and experience,
The EVALUATION means that:
a) the proposal is still UNDER REVIEW because either the experts haven't reached a consensus, or the proposal was returned to them to re-evaluate them. The latter occurs when there is a "difficult" case, where more effort is required to come up with a suitable score (either high or low, it doesn't matter). This also explains that some proposals may remain at evaluation until the end and get funded (because they went to the SEP system in the last day(s)).
b) If the consensus is given, (i.e., the review of the proposal is finalized), then the Evaluation means that the grade is UNDER the 70% threshold. So, the proposal is NOT forwarded to the SEP system in order to be ranked.

On the other hand, RANKING means that the Review has finished, there is a score above 70%, and it has been RANKED by the SEP system.
Beyond the above, there is not any other pattern. Since there is a special system (the SEP), it doesn't make sense to waste time and effort forwarding proposals above 70% to the SEP system in a hierarchical order (the SEP system will rank them anyhow). If there is info by getting an early rank (by early I mean days and not the hours' hypothesis), it may only be that the consensus was reached effortlessly (e.g., the pros and/or cons of the proposal were apparent to every expert reviewer). So, an effortless consensus may frequently occur in good proposals, but again, this may happen in moderate or low-quality proposals. So, again the ranking phase (earlier or later) is not an indicator of success or failure.

One solid conclusion is that since many of us have reached the Ranking phase, it means that the announcement will be on time (or earlier).

I think they already had the consensus reports. I checked my submission of last year, and found that EC released the rejection on Mar 21, 2022, yet released the ESR (evaluation summary report) on Feb 17, 2022, which means it would take approximately one month after ESRs are reached, although ESRs will only be visible to us applicants after the rejection/acceptance is sent.