Re: 2022 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2022)
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:35 am
I don't know what to think anymore, but the European Commission has visited my LinkedIn profile ๐ซ and I did not want to add more stress.
Haha nice, take it as a good sign, maybe they wanted to check who they are going to fundRodolfo1988 wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 1:35 amI don't know what to think anymore, but the European Commission has visited my LinkedIn profile ๐ซ and I did not want to add more stress.
Maybe. Or maybe they want to watch the "crazy trying MC" and have a laugh for a while.michelef wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 2:05 amHaha nice, take it as a good sign, maybe they wanted to check who they are going to fundRodolfo1988 wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 1:35 amI don't know what to think anymore, but the European Commission has visited my LinkedIn profile ๐ซ and I did not want to add more stress.
Well we're all crazy to try the MSCA...Rodolfo1988 wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 2:25 amMaybe. Or maybe they want to watch the "crazy trying MC" and have a laugh for a while.michelef wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 2:05 amHaha nice, take it as a good sign, maybe they wanted to check who they are going to fundRodolfo1988 wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 1:35 amI don't know what to think anymore, but the European Commission has visited my LinkedIn profile ๐ซ and I did not want to add more stress.
your status was the first one that changed to ranking, if I were you, I would take the LinkedIn visit as a good sign!Rodolfo1988 wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 2:25 amMaybe. Or maybe they want to watch the "crazy trying MC" and have a laugh for a while.michelef wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 2:05 amHaha nice, take it as a good sign, maybe they wanted to check who they are going to fundRodolfo1988 wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 1:35 amI don't know what to think anymore, but the European Commission has visited my LinkedIn profile ๐ซ and I did not want to add more stress.
That is a good question... My understanding is that each section is judged for the information it contains alone, i.e., it has to contain all the relevant information. So information relevant to implementation placed in the excellence part should not count for the judgment of the implementation part. But my understanding could easily be wrong, and the reviewers are humans and not machines, so they may count information appearing elsewhere just because they read it.AR Khojasteh wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 2:09 pmI 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.
You need to check the evaluation criteria. In principle, each section is evaluated separately and you need to match the elements present in the evaluation grid. But in practice experts of grant writing suggest to make connections between sections and to summarize them in the first page and in the abstract.AR Khojasteh wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 2:09 pmI 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.AR Khojasteh wrote: โSun Feb 05, 2023 2:09 pmI 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.