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

[lobo]

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.

Ok sorry if I overreacted. I agree with you with theories and little evidences, but in this case they already explain that in the official documents. Your score is just in the system because the evaluation was complete. This can be completed in different days/time, within a deadline. Only once all the results are collected, they are ranked by a computer, so there is absolutely no correlatin time/score, as esplicitly written in the official documents. Sorry but going against what is clear is also not so useful, otherwise we can justify homeopaty, qanon, and whateve antiscientific you can imagine. Sorry again if I overreacted and good luck to everyone. And don't be (too) desperate, I am sure you can all do great research also without the msca!

[Helaine7575]

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.

Ok sorry if I overreacted. I agree with you with theories and little evidences, but in this case they already explain that in the official documents. Your score is just in the system because the evaluation was complete. This can be completed in different days/time, within a deadline. Only once all the results are collected, they are ranked by a computer, so there is absolutely no correlatin time/score, as esplicitly written in the official documents. Sorry but going against what is clear is also not so useful, otherwise we can justify homeopaty, qanon, and whateve antiscientific you can imagine. Sorry again if I overreacted and good luck to everyone. And don't be (too) desperate, I am sure you can all do great research also without the msca!

Lobo: you could have not put It Better than this. Indeed good luck everyone, I understand we all Need our way to spend the time before the news and all anxious but Indeed let's try also to have some health discussions rather than keeping Reading thousands of posta from previous years. PS I am also a super qualitative researcher so I have Always issues with statistics as a principle

[XmendeleievX]

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.

Ok sorry if I overreacted. I agree with you with theories and little evidences, but in this case they already explain that in the official documents. Your score is just in the system because the evaluation was complete. This can be completed in different days/time, within a deadline. Only once all the results are collected, they are ranked by a computer, so there is absolutely no correlatin time/score, as esplicitly written in the official documents. Sorry but going against what is clear is also not so useful, otherwise we can justify homeopaty, qanon, and whateve antiscientific you can imagine. Sorry again if I overreacted and good luck to everyone. And don't be (too) desperate, I am sure you can all do great research also without the msca!

No need to apologize at all mate!! I totally understand your point but I will always give my view of things, disagreement is not equal to conflict. I myself am quite nervous about the all thing I have tried quite a few times and this one could be the difference between staying in academia or dropping it!.

[michelef]

Hey folks,
I've been checking the last year's data to refresh my memory on the relationship between timing of ranking and score, and decided to run some statistics. The problem is that the data is very sparse and not completely clear, and the datapoints where we know more or less the precise hour and the score are very few. Looking at the figure attached there may be some apparent trend, but simply the datapoints are too few to draw any meaningful conclusion. Except for the cluster of people reporting ranking at ~11 on March 1st, which all got high score, there are other people reporting the ranking early, but getting low scores. Needless to say, the correlation is not statistically significant (r = -0.53, p = 0.09).

I've been here since the 2018 call and I've always been a believer in the magic link, but really the data is not sufficient to understand the pattern. Perhaps if this year we get more people to record their data (in a more precise way) we may get more conclusive information

[CGN]

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

The evaluation is complete when all reviewers can reach an agreement and the scores are checked internally (it is clearly written that the decision to fund a proposal does not depend esclusively on reviewers' scores, but also on the EU priorities, there is an additional assessment after the reviewers' evaluation). Obviously, the sooner an agreement is reached, the sooner the internal review is performed. Again, as reported by past reviewers, there could be a very long discussion about a single topic (especially when they come from distant disciplines) because there might be a strong disagreement. As reported in the literature, a disagreement among reviewers correlates with a lower score. Usually, it is easier to reach an agreement on very bad proposals and on excellent proposals. Hence, we can infer that the timing is a relevant element when we are trying to guess the ranking ratio, we just don't know how to interpret the timing differences. This is not at all about statistical sciences but much more about human behaviour (sociology of groups, bureaucratic workflows, political agenda, etc.).

[Helaine7575]

Besides the speculations and patterns attempts (which as said in my previous posts are pointless to me) how Is everyone doing? I am personally very anxious, keep reading my proposal, some moments I think Is great, others I think I ll never get it. Cannot wait to receive the results, stuck on everything else, teaching, writing, projects, etc,. My mind Is on : Will I get It? Here, my confession what about the others, how do you feel?

[michelef]

Besides the speculations and patterns attempts (which as said in my previous posts are pointless to me) how Is everyone doing? I am personally very anxious, keep reading my proposal, some moments I think Is great, others I think I ll never get it. Cannot wait to receive the results, stuck on everything else, teaching, writing, projects, etc,. My mind Is on : Will I get It? Here, my confession what about the others, how do you feel?

Yeah the more we get close to the release date, the more difficult it gets to think about anything else. This time for some reasons I actually don't feel as anxious as I should be... I think I've got desensitized by the rejections of other grant applications. But still I can't wait to see what happens

[josimau]

Hey folks,
I've been checking the last year's data to refresh my memory on the relationship between timing of ranking and score, and decided to run some statistics. The problem is that the data is very sparse and not completely clear, and the datapoints where we know more or less the precise hour and the score are very few. Looking at the figure attached there may be some apparent trend, but simply the datapoints are too few to draw any meaningful conclusion. Except for the cluster of people reporting ranking at ~11 on March 1st, which all got high score, there are other people reporting the ranking early, but getting low scores. Needless to say, the correlation is not statistically significant (r = -0.53, p = 0.09).

I've been here since the 2018 call and I've always been a believer in the magic link, but really the data is not sufficient to understand the pattern. Perhaps if this year we get more people to record their data (in a more precise way) we may get more conclusive information

Thank you for this!

[jiangmq]

Hi, guys. Why does nobody talk today?

[kansal]

I guess because usually nothing happen during weekend.
Let see what happen on Monday or Tuesday next week. The next thing would be email.....