2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)

[chemcps]

Yes, I agree with your words. But my opinion is reducing points based on the experience of the supervisors is unacceptable.

In my case, I scored 85+ twice with no major weakness in the impact and implementation section and reduced 0.3 marks in each section which reduces the marks in overall value. So we can't expect positive things from the reviewer if they decided to reduce the marks.

I've seen another (or more) post from last year saying similar things, like "no weakness in the excellence but get 4.8/5.0" which leads to not being main-listed. Wonder who makes the final decision (on the score) because if each proposal gets min. 3 reviewers, would the reviewers all agree with reducing some points even though there is nothing to criticize?

We have to spare a thought for the evaluators. They are given very little room on a 5-point scale. When they deal with multiple proposals which do not have any weakness, but they collectively feel that one is better than another, they may deduct some points for one of the proposals.

[Cr@zyChem]

I don't think so. Last year my proposal went to a ranking on 29.01.2021 and it was scored above 85. Many peoples reported that their proposal went to a ranking by 03.02.2021 only.

At this point:

The Commission:

- produces a ranked list of proposals, including all proposals with scores above the qualifying score
- draws up a list of proposals for possible funding from that list. The number of proposals in the list depends on the available budget.

so....now "ranking" simply means that some projects have already been included in the first ranking. As they are inserted, all projects move to the first list. Then the commission goes to point 2. This is the final ranking divided by panels.

Meaning those still in Evaluation possibly didn't meet the qualifying score which can only be determined when results are released.

Seem like some of us already know our outcome. For the rest in ranking -- best wishes, may the best candidate win

From what I've read from previous years,and also from the document posted here, ranking means you passed the threshold, no guarantee of being granted. But there's a thread called "still evaluation" from last year in which it seems that people in evaluation did not get the grant. Also, there's the "human factor", they select new evaluators that are not familiar to the system, so it might be that those cases that were in evaluation and got the grant could be glitches in the system or simply a mistake from rapporteurs when submitting the status in the system...

[CatTaotao]

Thanks for letting me know about my mistake. It was the one submitted in 2019.

Ture. I see that dreamer also got ranking on 29 Jan in 2019 and he didn't get it.

This year is a bit similar to 2019, phases of some people change to ranking 11 days ahead of the announcement date.

We're results released before the set date in 2019?

Maybe, I am not sure.
@chemcps can you confirm?

[chemcps]

Yes. The result was announced five days before the deadline.

Ture. I see that dreamer also got ranking on 29 Jan in 2019 and he didn't get it.

This year is a bit similar to 2019, phases of some people change to ranking 11 days ahead of the announcement date.

We're results released before the set date in 2019?

Maybe, I am not sure.
@chemcps can you confirm?

[Cr@zyChem]

Yes. The result was announced five days before the deadline.

We're results released before the set date in 2019?

Maybe, I am not sure.
@chemcps can you confirm?

Oh peeps!!!! This is happening!!!!! My guess, if no phase changes today, they'll release resultado to NPC tomorrow and we'll know by Monday the first results...
Oh gee, I can't get any work done...

[2021]

Yes. The result was announced five days before the deadline.

We're results released before the set date in 2019?

Maybe, I am not sure.
@chemcps can you confirm?

No, in 2019 result was declared on 12/02/2019

[CatTaotao]

Yes. The result was announced five days before the deadline.

We're results released before the set date in 2019?

Maybe, I am not sure.
@chemcps can you confirm?

Then...in 2019 did anyone receive ranking status on 29 of Jan finally got funded?
or almost all funded people got ranking on 3rd of Feb?

[aspil]

No, in 2019 result was declared on 12/02/2019

Might be referring to the 2019 call, with results announced in Feb 2020. For that call, I remember the results were announced a few days before the deadline.

[chemcps]

I meant the proposal submitted in 2019 and the result was announced on 4.2.2020.

Yes. The result was announced five days before the deadline.

Maybe, I am not sure.
@chemcps can you confirm?

No, in 2019 result was declared on 12/02/2019

[dw2022]

In my case, I scored 85+ twice with no major weakness in the impact and implementation section and reduced 0.3 marks in each section which reduces the marks in overall value. So we can't expect positive things from the reviewer if they decided to reduce the marks.

I've seen another (or more) post from last year saying similar things, like "no weakness in the excellence but get 4.8/5.0" which leads to not being main-listed. Wonder who makes the final decision (on the score) because if each proposal gets min. 3 reviewers, would the reviewers all agree with reducing some points even though there is nothing to criticize?

We have to spare a thought for the evaluators. They are given very little room on a 5-point scale. When they deal with multiple proposals which do not have any weakness, but they collectively feel that one is better than another, they may deduct some points for one of the proposals.

yeah, I guess the evaluation process of msca (i.e. one reviewer might evaluate multiple proposals competing for the same fellowship at the same time) does not help with reducing the (already existing) randomness of reviewing process. However, given the large volume of applications, there seem no other better options.

I have obtained a postdoc scholarship and an individual grant before, neither of them is as random or one-shot game as msca as I feel. The scholarship has a two-stage (proposal evaluation + in-person interview) schedule, for the grant they rejected my initial application but allowed a revision (just like a paper that the revised proposal would be evaluated by the same reviewers).

anyway, curious to read the comments of reviewers, and fingers crossed for everyone here!!