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

[spes]

Hy guys, this is my first MSCA call. I found this on line forum a few days ago and I shared with you my stress waiting for the results. By this forum, I discovered many things that I did not know about MSCA call. Now I want share my experience. I didn't get MSCA. I got my rejection letter on 13 February at 7:00 p.m. [SOC panel, GF - total score: 74,6 (3.70 - 3.40 - 4.30)]. Some of reviewers's comments are clear and they will be usable if I submit my proposal next year, but I didn't understand some feedbacks in respect of my project. According to my supervisor, I should try again due to the very positive observations in the Summary Report. There are in fact more strenghts than weaknesses. I was pleasantly surprised by the Implementation's score (I worked so hard to realize the Gannt Chart and explain the work plan). Frankly, I dont'know what to do. Maybe the templates for the application will change and the idea of actually starting over again with new models and a new structure of the proposal sounds so discouraging and stressing to me.

[triad_Mon]

Rejection (third time) - 83.6% - (4.2, 3.8, 4.7) - EF ENG . I will disclose some info, which may betray my id, but don't give a dime.

I will try to get national funding to do this research and end the story. However, I need to be fast, because after each unsuccessful MSCA proposal, mysteriously (I know that this sounds paranoid, but I cannot unsee it) a study appears that has very similar methods and aims to my proposal. So, last year I saw a study which used VR to predict personality traits by having a similar environment and protocol to the one I suggested (Yes, it came from an EU university, which happens to be known for its MSCA fellowships). This was like 9 months after my submission when the reviewers said that this method is not feasible for predicting personality traits. Anyhow, also to avoid paranoia, I will stay out of MSCA, and I will continue with other sources of funding.

Last year I saw a story similar to mine, even worse someone going from 90 to 60 or the like. I was shocked and thought it could have easily be me. I think that instead of wasting our time vending off here, or about the magic link and other conspiracy theories, we should organize and raise all these concerns with the EU. If raising evaluation concerns individually is a dead-end, maybe if we organized in a different way, some things would get better.

It is not sensical to go from a very high score to very low. Especially for re-submissions, it means that either the first time it was strongly overrated or the second strongly downrated, which is a problem in both ways. It means that people who don't deserve it might get to get the fellowship if having enough luck, and those who worked much more may never get to.

And when I say never, I mean never because with the new rules that the EU imposed (age limit etc.), they should have at least provided a fair evaluation system. If their problem was the high number of applications, this means that with the reduction in numbers they should be able to find an actual expert in each field - mine it was obvious that was not, they were asking questions related to a different domain, that I would have to be in a different discipline to answer (and my proposal was already very interdisciplinary as it was).

[CP5]

I had never written before before but I think that now is necessary to share my experience.

I applied for the first time in 2021 and I got 90% (EF SOC). I reapplied this year with the same host and the same project - I did only very minor changes to address the weaknesses highlighted in the first ESR (in relation to the risk management and the gender issue). I got 59%.

In the meanwhile I got a tenure-track position so I would not have accepted the grant anyway, but I am still shocked at the contempt shown for my project (according to the referee, there does not seem to be absolutely anything of interest in it). Some of the strengths described in the first review are contained in exactly inverted form in the second.

I have heard of at least one other person to whom the same thing happened.

I was thinking of applying for other European calls (ERC) but at this point, I think I will not do it.

[pkourtes]

Rejection (third time) - 83.6% - (4.2, 3.8, 4.7) - EF ENG . I will disclose some info, which may betray my id, but don't give a dime.

I will try to get national funding to do this research and end the story. However, I need to be fast, because after each unsuccessful MSCA proposal, mysteriously (I know that this sounds paranoid, but I cannot unsee it) a study appears that has very similar methods and aims to my proposal. So, last year I saw a study which used VR to predict personality traits by having a similar environment and protocol to the one I suggested (Yes, it came from an EU university, which happens to be known for its MSCA fellowships). This was like 9 months after my submission when the reviewers said that this method is not feasible for predicting personality traits. Anyhow, also to avoid paranoia, I will stay out of MSCA, and I will continue with other sources of funding.

Last year I saw a story similar to mine, even worse someone going from 90 to 60 or the like. I was shocked and thought it could have easily be me. I think that instead of wasting our time vending off here, or about the magic link and other conspiracy theories, we should organize and raise all these concerns with the EU. If raising evaluation concerns individually is a dead-end, maybe if we organized in a different way, some things would get better.

It is not sensical to go from a very high score to very low. Especially for re-submissions, it means that either the first time it was strongly overrated or the second strongly downrated, which is a problem in both ways. It means that people who don't deserve it might get to get the fellowship if having enough luck, and those who worked much more may never get to.

And when I say never, I mean never because with the new rules that the EU imposed (age limit etc.), they should have at least provided a fair evaluation system. If their problem was the high number of applications, this means that with the reduction in numbers they should be able to find an actual expert in each field - mine it was obvious that was not, they were asking questions related to a different domain, that I would have to be in a different discipline to answer (and my proposal was already very interdisciplinary as it was).

I agree with you in several parts, but what kind of feedback (concerns) should we give them? I had 24 strengths and 4 (1-2-1) weaknesses (and at least two of them are utterly stupid, so useless for me) in the whole proposal and I got as low as 83.6. My opinion is that this is a problem that they don't desire to fix it, because it serves some politics (sometimes I think what Marie Sklodowska-Curie would have thought about this funding that carries her name). I think the best advice is from Steminist... keep in mind that this is a lottery (reviewers' wise), and just keep MSCA as a plan b.

[AR Khojasteh]

Hi friends, I received a rejection for my EF-ENG application with an 85 score. Though my scientific part received good comments, I need help with addressing implementation and impact.

Can anyone share her/his proposal (in private), with sensitive parts removed or even the excellence part removed, to help me improve my own? I will use it for personal revision only.

[Taha2021]

Hello everyone!

My case: I applied last year for the first time and got above 90. This year, with the same proposal and a couple of improvements, I got 85.00%. I really thought that I would get a better score, but this time the reviewers did not like exactly the part that previous reviewers loved...

In any case, I wanted to mention to all the people that got the seal of excellence that there are other options. Last year, I got the seal and used it to apply for one of these special calls and I got a position. So look for these calls (they are real opportunities!).

https://research-and-innovation.ec.euro ... er-msca_en
https://www.gea.mur.gov.it/Bandi/YoungResearchersSoE

Some of them will open soon =)
So even if this year you don't get the MSCA, keep in mind the seal for this or next year.

and Congrats to all the winners! =)

[triad_Mon]

I agree with you in several parts, but what kind of feedback (concerns) should we give them? I had 24 strengths and 4 (1-2-1) weaknesses (and at least two of them are utterly stupid, so useless for me) in the whole proposal and I got as low as 83.6. My opinion is that this is a problem that they don't desire to fix it, because it serves some politics (sometimes I think what Marie Sklodowska-Curie would have thought about this funding that carries her name). I think the best advice is from Steminist... keep in mind that this is a lottery (reviewers' wise), and just keep MSCA as a plan b.

My personal take is that this is more of a 'celebrity fellowship'. If you get it, you get lots of accolades. Unfortunately, it also seems to be sort of a 'shooting star' fellowship. What impressed me was the low percentage of people continuing in research after its end. While there are people who did a serious job, there are also many many more cases that the outcome on the career was completely other than academia.

If the EU does not want to fix the reviewers issue (I would propose getting more established researchers as reviewers, candidates passing interviews before getting the fellowship etc.), they could just make a different scheme for post-docs, one that is more oriented towards academia, fundamental research etc., and keep this for more industry or other type of after-fellowship routes.

What do you think?

[Taha2021]

Rejection (third time) - 83.6% - (4.2, 3.8, 4.7) - EF ENG . I will disclose some info, which may betray my id, but don't give a dime.

I will try to get national funding to do this research and end the story. However, I need to be fast, because after each unsuccessful MSCA proposal, mysteriously (I know that this sounds paranoid, but I cannot unsee it) a study appears that has very similar methods and aims to my proposal. So, last year I saw a study which used VR to predict personality traits by having a similar environment and protocol to the one I suggested (Yes, it came from an EU university, which happens to be known for its MSCA fellowships). This was like 9 months after my submission when the reviewers said that this method is not feasible for predicting personality traits. Anyhow, also to avoid paranoia, I will stay out of MSCA, and I will continue with other sources of funding.

Last year I saw a story similar to mine, even worse someone going from 90 to 60 or the like. I was shocked and thought it could have easily be me. I think that instead of wasting our time vending off here, or about the magic link and other conspiracy theories, we should organize and raise all these concerns with the EU. If raising evaluation concerns individually is a dead-end, maybe if we organized in a different way, some things would get better.

It is not sensical to go from a very high score to very low. Especially for re-submissions, it means that either the first time it was strongly overrated or the second strongly downrated, which is a problem in both ways. It means that people who don't deserve it might get to get the fellowship if having enough luck, and those who worked much more may never get to.

And when I say never, I mean never because with the new rules that the EU imposed (age limit etc.), they should have at least provided a fair evaluation system. If their problem was the high number of applications, this means that with the reduction in numbers they should be able to find an actual expert in each field - mine it was obvious that was not, they were asking questions related to a different domain, that I would have to be in a different discipline to answer (and my proposal was already very interdisciplinary as it was).

I agree with you that some improvements need to be made. I think the best thing should be to have the resubmitted proposal evaluated by the same team of reviewers, but that will never happen. One idea might be to have at least 1 of the reviewers from the previous call be on the new set of reviewers...but I'm not sure how we can get them to listen to our concerns.....

[UKresearcher]

rejection, 78, but it was a resubmission, last year, it was 92. Shocked!

[Accapsì]

rejection, 78, but it was a resubmission, last year, it was 92. Shocked!

Same here, rejection with 70 (3.5, 3.5, 3.5) for my resubmission which scored 83,6 last year. I had modified very little, only the things asked for by the reviewers, most of which seemed reasonable to me at the time.

This year's review seems "fake", there is nothing personal about it, it's extremely generic comments that seem copy-pasted from the manual. Also the 3.5 in every section feels kind of odd. I don't know, I think something is off.