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

[dftortosa]

Hi everyone!

Do you know how frequent is to get funding for people in the reserve list? I am in the first position of my list, so I was wondering if asking for re-evaluation is too risky in this situation.

Thanks!

[Little_Venice]

Hey, I am probably not making it easier but you are not below the cut-off, you are smack in the middle of it.. I answered re: appeal 2 pages back.. I hope you get it next year!

In SOC IF reserve list Excellence 4.9/5 ; impact 4.6/5 ; implementation 4/5 overall 92.6, less than one mark off the cut-off point. The weakness on the part 'implementation' look absurd too me (they said it's not enough and that's not sufficient for somethings bla bla but in fact all of that have been clearly discussed in the proposal) so I'm thinking of making an appeal case - but yeah, it seems the chance for them to revise the score is low as it's extremely difficult to prove they have made arbitrary judgements - even they did).

Can anyone share experience of applying for appeal, if any?

[MSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020]

Hi everyone!

Do you know how frequent is to get funding for people in the reserve list? I am in the first position of my list, so I was wondering if asking for re-evaluation is too risky in this situation.

Thanks!

Oh it is very likely I think so I not sure about that, they can also reduce your score upon re-evaluation! Maybe ask your NCP?

[Anni_LIF]

The biggest criticism I got was obviously in excellence, which counts much more. Funny how they start all their sentences with Although...

Although the opportunities to integrate the researcher in the different areas of expertise and to create international networking are described
in the proposal, the quality of the integration in the team is not convincing because the proposal falls short of specific actions or measures for
successful integration into the team/institution.

I do not now what form of integration they want. I talked about already joining all their weekly meeting while I was still in a different country, working in a different lab. About the different types of meetings with the other researchers, the open office spaces for discussions. My plan to do some methodological courses on things I have done. I am really wondering what crazier integration there is. You join a lab, hang out togehter, have lunch and talk science. At least in our field I did not feel like there were strong issues with integration.

Although the skills that are planned to be acquired during the fellowship are appropriate to the proposed research and complement very well
the researcher's skills and previous professional experience, the proposed training plan is not convincing as it fails to describe sufficient
activities to acquire the new skills.

Some important methodological aspects are insufficiently described in the proposal. For example, how the matching data will be
analysed (on what criteria, what is measured) is not clear enough.

Noooo, I even made a figure for you and described it.

Other weaknesses in Implementation:

- The proposal provides unclear information regarding the distribution of person-months across tasks, undermining the demonstration that the
work plan is credible.

I really still do not understand what they mean by person-month. I have a very detailed Gantt chart. what were they looking for?

- The proposal addresses well the administrative risks but falls short of risk assessment/management regarding the scientific aspects.

Did anyone put fake risks with mitigation strategies, just to have some??
From the science side it is not such a high risk project. I program experiments, put observers in front of a screen and ask them to press buttons. If my hypothesis is not confirmed, I am ok, that is science not a risk. But except for my Laptop and my hard drive getting stolen and the cloud and dropbox gets hacked and all my data is gone, we could not think of any risks. All risks regarding Ehtis approvals etc are mentioned.
I am now thinking of risks just to have them for next time, if I would go through this again.

[chkin]

Hey, I am probably not making it easier but you are not below the cut-off, you are smack in the middle of it.. I answered re: appeal 2 pages back.. I hope you get it next year!

In SOC IF reserve list Excellence 4.9/5 ; impact 4.6/5 ; implementation 4/5 overall 92.6, less than one mark off the cut-off point. The weakness on the part 'implementation' look absurd too me (they said it's not enough and that's not sufficient for somethings bla bla but in fact all of that have been clearly discussed in the proposal) so I'm thinking of making an appeal case - but yeah, it seems the chance for them to revise the score is low as it's extremely difficult to prove they have made arbitrary judgements - even they did).

Can anyone share experience of applying for appeal, if any?

Thanks - I think the cut-off point is 93.4 but yeah i know there is almost no chance to climb up back to that - the comments that deduct points from me is pretty non-sense and very subjective - but i know not much can be done even if i make the appeal - it seems we almost haven't heard of any case that has the score revised.

I'll check out your post on appeal - many thanks!

[Ila-MSCA]

ST-LIF: Guys, I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE! I got terrible comments on the project (Excellence)... I was so sorry... BUT ... BUT... reading carefully the comments, they made the medline on the wrong protein, saying that the project was not new at all ... but they spelt the molecule out in the WRONG WAY, and of course all the revision is not consistent with my project. As often happens in biology, similar acronyms are used, for extremely different stuff. My protein has never been studied in my field, the protein he/she wrote about, is extremely studied. This influenced the score, that was 2.5 out of 5... in the IMPACT section I got 5/5, in the Implementation 3/5 because of a shorter duration of the project (15 months).
I felt 15 months to be appropriate for a pioneering study. But of course, the revisor did not even get what I was going to study because search on the wrong protein.
What should I do now?
Thank you

[Anni_LIF]

ST-LIF: Guys, I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE! I got terrible comments on the project (Excellence)... I was so sorry... BUT ... BUT... reading carefully the comments, they made the medline on the wrong protein, saying that the project was not new at all ... but they spelt the molecule out in the WRONG WAY, and of course all the revision is not consistent with my project. As often happens in biology, similar acronyms are used, for extremely different stuff. My protein has never been studied in my field, the protein he/she wrote about, is extremely studied. This influenced the score, that was 2.5 out of 5... in the IMPACT section I got 5/5, in the Implementation 3/5 because of a shorter duration of the project (15 months).
I felt 15 months to be appropriate for a pioneering study. But of course, the revisor did not even get what I was going to study because search on the wrong protein.
What should I do now?
Thank you

Heyhey,
you can appeal, as far as I know. I have never tried it, so I am not sure how this works.

So you mean, they thought your proposal is about a completely different protein? That is bad, sounds like they did not properly read it.

[curious]

Hello,
Does anyone know if it is possible for a single supervisor to support more than one applicant in each call? I did not get this year and was wondering if I can still apply for the next call.

Thank you!

[MSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020]

ST-LIF: Guys, I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE! I got terrible comments on the project (Excellence)... I was so sorry... BUT ... BUT... reading carefully the comments, they made the medline on the wrong protein, saying that the project was not new at all ... but they spelt the molecule out in the WRONG WAY, and of course all the revision is not consistent with my project. As often happens in biology, similar acronyms are used, for extremely different stuff. My protein has never been studied in my field, the protein he/she wrote about, is extremely studied. This influenced the score, that was 2.5 out of 5... in the IMPACT section I got 5/5, in the Implementation 3/5 because of a shorter duration of the project (15 months).
I felt 15 months to be appropriate for a pioneering study. But of course, the revisor did not even get what I was going to study because search on the wrong protein.
What should I do now?
Thank you

You should for sure appeal!!
But you would need to now get very high (almost 5) in excellence and you have lost 8% in implementation, but worth a try!

[MSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020]

Hello,
Does anyone know if it is possible for a single supervisor to support more than one applicant in each call? I did not get this year and was wondering if I can still apply for the next call.

Thank you!

So I actually thought no, but this year i saw a PI on twitter who announced 2 of his fellows got it!