2024 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship(HE-MSCA-PF-2024)

[Name_XXX]

Hi all,

This was my first attempt with a host institution in Germany for EF-SOC. My score is 74% which is disappointingly low. Had prepared the application quite thoroughly with host supervisor and grant manager at the University according to MCSA guidelines.

The feedback is quite arbitrary and despite mentioning many strengths, it lists weaknesses which are mostly to do with the state of the art. (Like connection with this discipline is not made clear with another discipline). Some questions raised in methodology which are in fact answered in various places in the proposal. It seems that the reviewers made a quick judgement based on the abstract (or were very keen to reject the project out rightly). This is quite evident considering a striking error in their comments, where they mention the name of a wrong institute in my city, but not my host institution, pointing out for the two way transfer of knowledge -

''In terms of transfer of knowledge from the researcher to the host, the proposal does not address in sufficient detail how the researcher's specific expertise stands our and relates to the (Wrong host institution name)''

That is very strange for me, as I have been previously associated with my host institution and provide a lot of detail regarding this in the specific section for it.

Is there a way to redress such an error? I would at least want to point out this error given the hardwork that one puts in such applications, though perhaps a reversal of decision is no more an option.

Also, could it be that this reviewer is someone close to the institution or the country I am applying from, who might make such an error. Seems like someone familiar to the institute named it (unknowingly?) in the report, where conventionally my field of studies is known for. But then its so wrong, as throughout my application it is quite clear that I am applying from another host institution!

Any suggestions are welcome on how to go about this, including to shrug it off and move on, for the arbitrariness of it all.

It is always complicated to judge in this case. What the applicant writes and what reviewers conclude - without having the full application and full report, it cannot be concluded who is right. If you really believe that there is some factual mistake in their statements (say, all the explanations you refer to should really be in the other section instead of the section to which reviewers refer, etc.)., then you should redress.

[Name_XXX]

So, to conclude: the presence of contact in

F&T portal -> Follow-up -> Formal notifications to the EU

seemed to indicate winning the fellowship already 1-2 weeks before the announcement date (the opposite - the absence of contact means "not funded" - was not 100% conclusive). At least, the data in the spreadsheet does not provide any single opposite result. For sure, it is a much stronger criterion than "early ranking" or whatever else.

I am pretty sure that the same thing was true all the previous years. Weirdly, nobody has found this before the current generation of applicants (previous datasets simply did not include the "contact" column).

Let this information be useful for the next generation, to avoid speculations about it, and let us hope that this indicator will not be removed in the future.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... ue&sd=true

[spreeweg]

If you really believe that there is some factual mistake in their statements

The reviewer names an institute that is in another university than the one I applied to. If it wasnt a case of rejection of a big grant like MCSA, its quite hilarious that this can be passed out to the candidate in the summary report! It is of course a blatant factual mistake, but also makes it seem like a hasty review.

[Name_XXX]

If you really believe that there is some factual mistake in their statements

The reviewer names an institute that is in another university than the one I applied to. If it wasnt a case of rejection of a big grant like MCSA, its quite hilarious that this can be passed out to the candidate in the summary report! It is of course a blatant factual mistake, but also makes it seem like a hasty review.

Then, it seems, you have chances. Clearly state generic issues at the very beginning, and then illustrate them with factual statements.

[Future]

I would like to clarify a doubt that may seem silly, but it has been bothering me at the moment. Is our grade that appears in the report the sum of the three aspects evaluated in the proposal? I am asking this because when I add up the grades for the three aspects, it does not equal my grade.

[Kevin90]

I think the evaluators will go through all the informative pages before reaching Part B. So if they already have some personal judgments or opinions about your host, they will already establish an attitude, positive or negative, before read your well polished part. Personal prejudice is unfortunately unavoidable. I hope they can invite more evaluators outside EU, working more like a third party.

[Name_XXX]

I would like to clarify a doubt that may seem silly, but it has been bothering me at the moment. Is our grade that appears in the report the sum of the three aspects evaluated in the proposal? I am asking this because when I add up the grades for the three aspects, it does not equal my grade.

Yes, it should be the weighted sum: 0.5*excellence + 0.3*impact + 0.2*implementation.

[AH_90]

I would like to clarify a doubt that may seem silly, but it has been bothering me at the moment. Is our grade that appears in the report the sum of the three aspects evaluated in the proposal? I am asking this because when I add up the grades for the three aspects, it does not equal my grade.

They carry different weight.
((Excellence score * 50) + (Impact score * 30) + (Implementation score * 20)) / 5

[Future]

Tks very much.

[skm]

Hi all,

This was my first attempt with a host institution in Germany for EF-SOC. My score is 74% which is disappointingly low. Had prepared the application quite thoroughly with host supervisor and grant manager at the University according to MCSA guidelines.

The feedback is quite arbitrary and despite mentioning many strengths, it lists weaknesses which are mostly to do with the state of the art. (Like connection with this discipline is not made clear with another discipline). Some questions raised in methodology which are in fact answered in various places in the proposal. It seems that the reviewers made a quick judgement based on the abstract (or were very keen to reject the project out rightly). This is quite evident considering a striking error in their comments, where they mention the name of a wrong institute in my city, but not my host institution, pointing out for the two way transfer of knowledge -

''In terms of transfer of knowledge from the researcher to the host, the proposal does not address in sufficient detail how the researcher's specific expertise stands our and relates to the (Wrong host institution name)''

That is very strange for me, as I have been previously associated with my host institution and provide a lot of detail regarding this in the specific section for it.

Is there a way to redress such an error? I would at least want to point out this error given the hardwork that one puts in such applications, though perhaps a reversal of decision is no more an option.

Also, could it be that this reviewer is someone close to the institution or the country I am applying from, who might make such an error. Seems like someone familiar to the institute named it (unknowingly?) in the report, where conventionally my field of studies is known for. But then its so wrong, as throughout my application it is quite clear that I am applying from another host institution!

Any suggestions are welcome on how to go about this, including to shrug it off and move on, for the arbitrariness of it all.

I am not yet read my Evaluation report. but at a glance i am also not happy all times i am revising for better same project 3 time, it increased score each time, and now all of sudden gone back to square one. Its really surprising that same improved project how can get same type of coments as was doen at the first attempt of project???
I wrote to NCP, that i want to ask for re valuation. The scope will be there in the evaluation report itself it seems. please see. There will be some specific time period within which we need to ask redressal.
i also want to do that nothing to lose. i want to fight.