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

[PHSeal]

Hello,
Has anyone here also applied for the Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP)? I got shortlisted for full application and they say the results will be out in Feb or Mar.
Thanks!

[Helaine7575]

I made this file. I think that if we participate in completing this file, it will be a great help for the rest of us and for us in the future.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

thanks mate for that!
statistically, the robustness of the evaluation/ranking theory increases with the number of records included in the document. I tried to share the link to this thread in a Facebook group (Marie Curie Individual Fellowship 2023), but the administrators did not approve the publication of my post. could be useful if other MSCA applicants join this group and also fill out the table. Please share the link!!

I think there Is a sheet like this Every year and Every year It proves to be unconclusive, this Is why perhaps the adm did not approve It.

[Kakopli_17]

Guys, would you know if the "ranking" is relevant to this section?

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

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.

It's difficult to know for sure if the phase shown by the magic link reflects the ranking procedure mentioned... But considering that the change of phase happens over multiple days and someone never even gets to the ranking phase (while still getting funded), I don't think the automatic ranking mentioned in that paragraph is reflected by the ranking phase

But who knows!

Thanks for this info. I didn't know that people who never get to the ranking phase can still get funded. There is still hope then!

[kansal]

From last year, I don't think there is any association between time of ranking and funded proposal.
However, I do believe that the first lots of emails usually sent out first for funded projects.

[belin]

I am afraid I do not understand this call. I am still in EVALUATION in the CHE panel, and I find it hard to believe that the proposal did not surpass 70%. I guess it is still possible, but I reckon it is unlikely. Last year I had 90% in a worse project.

What is tricky about this year, at least in the CHE panel, is that looking at the spreadsheet of this year, only 3/12 applicants are in RANKING, which is in stark contrast with the ratio of last year, that at the end of the evaluation was 10/1, so inverted. This could indicate that not all the reviews are dumped into the system, that my self-assessment is wrong, or that our estimations of the meanings of the magic link are farther than we think/are modified in every call.

[mnemosyne]

I am afraid I do not understand this call. I am still in EVALUATION in the CHE panel, and I find it hard to believe that the proposal did not surpass 70%. I guess it is still possible, but I reckon it is unlikely. Last year I had 90% in a worse project.

What is tricky about this year, at least in the CHE panel, is that looking at the spreadsheet of this year, only 3/12 applicants are in RANKING, which is in stark contrast with the ratio of last year, that at the end of the evaluation was 10/1, so inverted. This could indicate that not all the reviews are dumped into the system, that my self-assessment is wrong, or that our estimations of the meanings of the magic link are farther than we think/are modified in every call.

I hope you are right.. but mostly love your user name xD

[XmendeleievX]

I am afraid I do not understand this call. I am still in EVALUATION in the CHE panel, and I find it hard to believe that the proposal did not surpass 70%. I guess it is still possible, but I reckon it is unlikely. Last year I had 90% in a worse project.

What is tricky about this year, at least in the CHE panel, is that looking at the spreadsheet of this year, only 3/12 applicants are in RANKING, which is in stark contrast with the ratio of last year, that at the end of the evaluation was 10/1, so inverted. This could indicate that not all the reviews are dumped into the system or that our estimations are farther than we think.

Hi Belin,

This is my 4th application and I always followed this forum closely. This far no one could prove any correlation between the "evaluation to ranking" and the success of the proposal. Last year several people didn't even change to ranking and they got the grant. Some people got to ranking very early and didn't get it, some people got to ranking very early and got it... and so on. My point is try not to overthink about this.

[whiteknight]

I made this file. I think that if we participate in completing this file, it will be a great help for the rest of us and for us in the future.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

thanks mate for that!
statistically, the robustness of the evaluation/ranking theory increases with the number of records included in the document. I tried to share the link to this thread in a Facebook group (Marie Curie Individual Fellowship 2023), but the administrators did not approve the publication of my post. could be useful if other MSCA applicants join this group and also fill out the table. Please share the link!!

I think there Is a sheet like this Every year and Every year It proves to be unconclusive, this Is why perhaps the adm did not approve It.

I shared the link to the thread (not to the table).....and it has not been approved. The thread could be useful for many other reasons to MSCA applicants
At the moment the inconclusiveness of the sheet is strictly related to the poor number of records

[barbara22]

I am afraid I do not understand this call. I am still in EVALUATION in the CHE panel, and I find it hard to believe that the proposal did not surpass 70%. I guess it is still possible, but I reckon it is unlikely. Last year I had 90% in a worse project.

What is tricky about this year, at least in the CHE panel, is that looking at the spreadsheet of this year, only 3/12 applicants are in RANKING, which is in stark contrast with the ratio of last year, that at the end of the evaluation was 10/1, so inverted. This could indicate that not all the reviews are dumped into the system, that my self-assessment is wrong, or that our estimations of the meanings of the magic link are farther than we think/are modified in every call.

Hi Belin,

Same situation over here... This is my 3rd application to a MSCA PF (always different project/supervisor/university). Last 2 were scored around 80%. This last time I had a loooooot more support from the University and from my supervisor, so I am honestly expecting >80%, but still in EVLAUATION (CHE panel as well). I simply refuse to believe this proposal is below 70%, but who knows...

I hope the phase changes soon, and that the RANKING thing doesn't mean anything in the end.

Good luck to all

[Helaine7575]

thanks mate for that!
statistically, the robustness of the evaluation/ranking theory increases with the number of records included in the document. I tried to share the link to this thread in a Facebook group (Marie Curie Individual Fellowship 2023), but the administrators did not approve the publication of my post. could be useful if other MSCA applicants join this group and also fill out the table. Please share the link!!

I think there Is a sheet like this Every year and Every year It proves to be unconclusive, this Is why perhaps the adm did not approve It.

I shared the link to the thread (not to the table).....and it has not been approved. The thread could be useful for many other reasons to MSCA applicants
At the moment the inconclusiveness of the sheet is strictly related to the poor number of records

To me, the only useful thing Is receiving the results, all the rest is unhealthy speculation.