2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)

[Fu Manchu]

A question came up about the evaluation process. Are the reviewers really aware of what proposals are gonna be funded? I dont think they know the cut score while doing the evaluations and, of course, if you give 99 or 65 to a proposal, you know the first will be accepted and the second will not. But there is a good amount of scores - I would say between 88 to 93 based on last year's results - that evaluators probably dont know if they are gonna get funded or not.

So, I believe that they have a score for "must be funded", which is usually quite rare; a score for "well, let's if this one gets the fellowship", which is also quite rare (but less than the first one); and the straight rejection, which is, sadly, the most common.

[Little_Venice]

Pete, this all makes sense and thanks for writing this out. just two additional thoughts. Firstly, I have no problem with the kind of subjectivity you are talking about. I do have a huge issue with reviewer comments that are just piled up together that are directly and unequivocally contradicting each other. There are dozens of examples in this chat in the previous years (and there will be more on Tuesday). Looking at those it's clear that either the reviewers didn't discuss those comments at all or they were grossly unqualified to carry out evaluation at this level. Secondly, when I say "lottery" I, of course, mean at a certain threshold. As in, objectively, there are stronger and there are weaker proposals. But there is not much difference between, say the score of 90 and 92 and those single points are oftentimes added or deducted for most random reasons. If you score 92 instead of 93 because for some BS reason such as "your fieldwork should be 9 months as opposed to 6" (true story), well, that's nothing but bad luck.

This sounds perfect on paper but I personally, over the years, have seen dozens of examples of random, inconsistent and self-contraductory reviewer comments. They will literally say that the project is innovative in the first comment and that the projects lacks innovative aspects in the last one, with all kinds of incosistencies in between. Also, dozens of examples of people scoring significantly lower on a resubmission, having allegedly improved the proposal. Sadly, the reviews I have seen strongly suggests that, at least in those particular cases, little of what you describe below is actually followed in practice.

I Ml

I agree with Little_Venice. I add that with 11000 application (or 9000 doesn't make really a difference) there is the need to sort out heavily applications. Therefore, if an evaluator wants to find shortcomings/limitations to your application she/he will find it and then your application might be compromised in any case already. Its not the first time I hear that from other colleagues evaluating.

It's not random, so perhaps the word "lottery" is unfair. But it is about the evaluator looking at your proposal and seeing value in it. The nature of debate in academic fields means that there are different views on this. And last year, the comments that I got that lowered by "excellence" score by over one point (even with improvements in clarity from the year before, when this section scored highly) were clearly about a political position in relation to the work I was carrying out. They were about a critique of the project that I could understand that someone would have from that perspective -- and have tried to preempt this year -- but they weren't actually about not seeing merit in the proposal. And then there were other comments that were clearly in there to find justifications to lower the score.

So randomly hating is not the correct term, but evaluators have positions, or they are given a proposal where they don't fully know the field so they are unable to evaluate them according to the latest work in that field. And when you are on the receiving end of this and your improved proposal reduces in score from one year to the other it feels very unfair and arbitrary.

For what it's worth, the first year that I didn't get it, I was waitlisted and had minor technical critiques about my project and the criteria which actually made me feel that it was very fair. But the reviewers were clear that I had a great idea. And then the next year the reviewers disagreed on this core point of whether the research topic I was addressing was a good one. It is a lottery as to whether I get reviewers who share this first position this year or the second one.

[Little_Venice]

Exactly. Let's get back to more pressing issues at hand!
Where, when, No panic?

Do not forget about NoPanic42 birthday party on Sunday

Yes! What time are we partying? We need a timezone specified!

NoPanic42 ? Any requests ?

[marialima]

Guys!! You all have been so supportive of each other and such good laugh with the memes... I’m so bloody nervous and this will make a big difference for all who get it...
Let’s keep each other posted on Tuesday when the results arrive...
Daily prayer for Friday 5th February 2021.
Lord of all,
Bless our children as they face their own challenges during this time of uncertainty.
Teach them that they will overcome many obstacles in their lives.
Show them that character is measured not by success, but by the way in which they deal with failure.
Comfort them when they worry, walk with them on their journey.
Give parents the wisdom to guide and advise them.
Show our children that they can change our world for the better, and make their goals peace and compassion for each other.
We ask this through Jesus Christ your son, our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God now and for ever.
AMEN

I read this on a group and wanted to share this with you all

Best wishes

[Amar]

Hi everyone, do you guys think, this MSCA fellowship would help one to secure an academic job in Europe?

of course. this fellowship is with high reputation globally

I completely agree.

[Iwanttowin]

!!!!

[Diatosystem]

GUYS RESULTS ARE OUT!!!! NCP told my friend!!!!!!!!

WHERE? WHERE? WHERE?

[Amar]

GUYS RESULTS ARE OUT!!!! NCP told my friend!!!!!!!!

Iwanttowin, out for us or for NCPs?

[byo001]

Do you think these evaluators are selected based on where the host institution is located or its more of random selection?

[AndyC]

GUYS RESULTS ARE OUT!!!! NCP told my friend!!!!!!!!

I think what you want to say is that NCP got the results and informed your friend about the outcome of his proposal ? Am I right ?