Talk Academia

MarieCuR wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:27 pm

I got my email. Got it!

Satrius wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:55 pm

I am among the rejected!

It is frustrating and demotivating to see that your application has been evaluated by people who are totally incompetent for your subject, and who have decided to reject even though they can not deny the quality of the project.
For those working in Humanities these opportunities of funding are very rare, and greater impartiality and competence should be guaranteed.

rsr wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:21 am

InfoCom wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:16 am

In my case review quality is very bad. I can't imagine how some one can give such non serious comments. I am ok I had alternative options but there are people who really need this and reviewer show such non serious attitude.

Everybody gets some review comments of questionable quality (myself included). This is how MSCA works... If you intend to re-apply you should keep this in mind (to not get frustrated )!!!

In my publication plan, I had the top venues (both conferences and journals) of my domain and I got this comment: "the respective venues are of medium quality". At best, this reviewer is not very familiar with the domain so I wonder why he/she reviewed my proposal.
Not complaining, I knew that it is always possible to get such comments with MSCA...

danGFSOC wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:34 pm

Satrius wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:55 pm

I am among the rejected!

It is frustrating and demotivating to see that your application has been evaluated by people who are totally incompetent for your subject, and who have decided to reject even though they can not deny the quality of the project.
For those working in Humanities these opportunities of funding are very rare, and greater impartiality and competence should be guaranteed.

rsr wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:21 am

Everybody gets some review comments of questionable quality (myself included). This is how MSCA works... If you intend to re-apply you should keep this in mind (to not get frustrated )!!!

In my publication plan, I had the top venues (both conferences and journals) of my domain and I got this comment: "the respective venues are of medium quality". At best, this reviewer is not very familiar with the domain so I wonder why he/she reviewed my proposal.
Not complaining, I knew that it is always possible to get such comments with MSCA...

I had the opposite experience. Last year 78% and very clear, reasonable and constructive comments. This year 89% and comments are so poor and useless (e.g. you didn't point out the frequency in the social media use...) that I am wondering how they can do this. My only explication is that despite the "objective effect" of the score in any case the evaluation very much depends on the profile of evaluators (what they like and on what they work on and with which methodologies etc...) and on the projects that are your competitors for that year. It is a comparative evaluation in any case. And this is actually a lottery in the sense that those are elements you cannot really work on. When you arrive in the "excellence area" near to the funding area if they find that other projects are more interesting than yours, etc... but they cannot justify it in those terms they have just to phrase comments that reflect the guide for applicants. And what comes out is just meaningless compared to the fact that you lost a very important opportunity.

In any case... who in GF-SOC got it?

MarieCuR wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:39 pm

ID 797XXX
Time: 9.46

ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:39 pm

I hear you the idiot comment says I did not specify the number of journal articles I expect to submit where in reality I wrote the number of articles and also intended outlets. I had a chance to review the evaluation reports of winning projects. The comments are similar to mine yet I got 3.8 and they got 4.8. So the key is whether they like your project or not.

danGFSOC wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:34 pm

Satrius wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:55 pm

I am among the rejected!

It is frustrating and demotivating to see that your application has been evaluated by people who are totally incompetent for your subject, and who have decided to reject even though they can not deny the quality of the project.
For those working in Humanities these opportunities of funding are very rare, and greater impartiality and competence should be guaranteed.

I had the opposite experience. Last year 78% and very clear, reasonable and constructive comments. This year 89% and comments are so poor and useless (e.g. you didn't point out the frequency in the social media use...) that I am wondering how they can do this. My only explication is that despite the "objective effect" of the score in any case the evaluation very much depends on the profile of evaluators (what they like and on what they work on and with which methodologies etc...) and on the projects that are your competitors for that year. It is a comparative evaluation in any case. And this is actually a lottery in the sense that those are elements you cannot really work on. When you arrive in the "excellence area" near to the funding area if they find that other projects are more interesting than yours, etc... but they cannot justify it in those terms they have just to phrase comments that reflect the guide for applicants. And what comes out is just meaningless compared to the fact that you lost a very important opportunity.

In any case... who in GF-SOC got it?