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

[Steminist]

Time depends the gap after PhD. It was 7 years but now they made it 8 years. If you get below 70 then you cant re-submit but you can submit a new one with new topic.

That's odd that you've got a lower score the second time. Theoretically, if you stated that you are resubmitting, if you get a lower score than the previous year the evaluators have to to justify this and say why it was worse than the previous application.

I’m curious about the amount of times you applied - I thought it was a two time thing and you’re out. Is this not so?

Btw i am not sure about it. I think they will not block the resubmission or the proposal but they will block the applicant like ERC. I think this is how it works in ERC nope? So in this way, they can decrease the submitted proposals next years..

[michelef]

Time depends the gap after PhD. It was 7 years but now they made it 8 years. If you get below 70 then you cant re-submit but you can submit a new one with new topic.

I’m curious about the amount of times you applied - I thought it was a two time thing and you’re out. Is this not so?

Btw i am not sure about it. I think they will not block the resubmission or the proposal but they will block the applicant like ERC. I think this is how it works in ERC nope? So in this way, they can decrease the submitted proposals next years..

Yes it should work like the ERC. If you get less than 70 you are banned from applying during the next call, no matter whether it is a resubmission or an entirely different project

[Steminist]

Time depends the gap after PhD. It was 7 years but now they made it 8 years. If you get below 70 then you cant re-submit but you can submit a new one with new topic.

Btw i am not sure about it. I think they will not block the resubmission or the proposal but they will block the applicant like ERC. I think this is how it works in ERC nope? So in this way, they can decrease the submitted proposals next years..

Yes it should work like the ERC. If you get less than 70 you are banned from applying during the next call, no matter whether it is a resubmission or an entirely different project

And it will increase the competition and IMO, also the amount of the professional help. Such as ERC. Already some unis are doing courses or doing a pre-selection to the applicants, so next years we can expect more :/

[michelef]

Btw i am not sure about it. I think they will not block the resubmission or the proposal but they will block the applicant like ERC. I think this is how it works in ERC nope? So in this way, they can decrease the submitted proposals next years..

Yes it should work like the ERC. If you get less than 70 you are banned from applying during the next call, no matter whether it is a resubmission or an entirely different project

And it will increase the competition and IMO, also the amount of the professional help. Such as ERC. Already some unis are doing courses or doing a pre-selection to the applicants, so next years we can expect more :/

Yeah it's possible, the risk of being excluded for one year could either discourage applicants that are not yet confident enough, or increase the involvement of external professionals (or both). It's most likely going to get tougher and tougher each year

[kansal]

Anyone know that NCP would know the results for now?

[KathyHappy]

Anyone know that NCP would know the results for now?

I suppose so, but I'm not 100% sure, it's just my guess

[shnavazani]

How is important to fully follow the template?! I realized I have written sth related to 1.2 under 1.1! Would it be cause to failure of my application??

[anonymous_insider]

How is important to fully follow the template?! I realized I have written sth related to 1.2 under 1.1! Would it be cause to failure of my application??

It pretty much depends on the evaluator, but I don't think it's going to fail your proposal; maybe it's going to yield a slightly lower score? However, evaluators must be very careful in not being too stiff. If the information is there (even if misplaced) that aspect can (and in my opinion should) be evaluated; and if the proposal is penalized due to the misplaced information, the applicant might open a redress procedure, and the EU don't want that.
I can tell you about my conduct in such cases, as an evaluator. Misplaced information is not as rare as we think, even if we are accustomed with the proposal template. For a matter of being fair to the applicant and transparent with the funding body, I point out that the aspect in question is addressed in another section, and I give my assessment anyway. It may happen that the aspect in question was addressed very well and I don't see any reason to penalize the applicant for having misplaced it. That would be so unfair and unjustified in my opinion. Of course, this is how I behave. Not sure about other evaluators.

[Interstellar]

The truth is that most of the projects are made by scholars who have an excellent curriculum and are among the best researchers in Europe in the various disciplines. This very high level turns this competition into a stroke of luck. The one who finds the referees who like the project wins, the project can be written even worse than another.
Another problem, but it can't be otherwise, is that referees know who you are. At least in SOC this means that if you find a referee who disagrees with your work idea or what you do, he destroys your project, and that is wrong.
Last year they gave me two very favorable opinions. One of the referees was completely against it, and in order to lower it as much as he could he wrote false things (like that I had not described some things that were well listed), and in fact I bring the action. Was it served? No. Did it give Me satisfaction? Yes .

[anonymous_insider]

The truth is that most of the projects are made by scholars who have an excellent curriculum and are among the best researchers in Europe in the various disciplines. This very high level turns this competition into a stroke of luck. The one who finds the referees who like the project wins, the project can be written even worse than another.
Another problem, but it can't be otherwise, is that referees know who you are. At least in SOC this means that if you find a referee who disagrees with your work idea or what you do, he destroys your project, and that is wrong.
Last year they gave me two very favorable opinions. One of the referees was completely against it, and in order to lower it as much as he could he wrote false things (like that I had not described some things that were well listed), and in fact I bring the action. Was it served? No. Did it give Me satisfaction? Yes .

That's so sad how some people are incapable of attaining moral and scientific integrity
You did the right thing taking action for satisfaction