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

[Fu Manchu]

Same proposal:

2020 - Strengths:
1- The proposal includes a risk assessment which also addresses potential Covid-19 restriction and provides alternative approaches.
2- The proposal contains a clear, detailed and feasible outline of proposed dissemination measures and potential impact is realistic.
2- The project identifies a strategy to target key academic peers and non-academic stakeholders.
3- The research and training activities would contribute to the researcher's overall goal and aspiration towards an academic career and a future professorship.
2021 - Weaknesses:
1- The risk assessment plan is not sufficiently clear on specific mitigation measures and/or contingency plan(s).
2- The planned dissemination and exploitation measures within the academia are not explained with sufficient detail.
3- The expected future career perspectives and employability of the researcher after the fellowship are not adequately addressed.

Well... I had only 5 comments as weaknesses. At least two and a half of them were seeing as "strengths" in 2020's call. This isn't right.

[Fu Manchu]

Last year I got 83, my implementation part receive 3.4, this year I got 75, I have not made any major changes to the other parts, just concentrated on the implementation, and implementation was 2.5! excellence dropped from 4.6 to 3.4! The number of months and the budget were wron, and the reviewers claimed that my Turkish, Russian and Chinese were intermediate. Turkish is my native language and I have a PhD in Classical Chinese literature from a Chinese university with a dissertation written in Chinese! Ok, let's put Russian and Chinese aside, how can my native tongue be intermediate, and how do they decide? Furthermore, they found not using archeology for a project on 17th-18th century Mongol diplomacy. We are not talking about neandarthals, Mongol was the lingua franca of Eurasian diplomacy by then, and definitely no need for archeology. I plan to apply for a re-evaluation, because I seriously doubt that they read my proposal, or my CV at all, just skimmed through and gave a random score. They did not even understand that the project is on diplomtic history, they cited cross-cultural exchanges and how my proposal was lacking in them. I mean you do not need a PhD in history to know that diplomacy and cultural exchange are different fields right? Do you think that I can apply for these mistakes on grounds of procedural errors since they obviously invented weaknesses that were not even about the proposal's theme? I will contact my NCP but I would also be grateful for your suggestions as well. I am not hopeful of getting the grant but I want an indiscriminate and just evaluation at this point.

I am really sorry for you, and these calls can be so infuriating because they are in many ways not fair at all.

Thanks for the support, I am actually not angry at not getting the grant, because as I began to see people with 94.4 on the reserve list, I accepted the fact that I did not get it, what is bothering me is the comments, and how unprofessional they were. Yes , you might not like the idea, and try to find some weak points, but you do not invent them such as claiming that the applicant has intermediate reading skills in his native language, or did not use archeology for understanding early modern diplomatic practices. .

Same feeling here. I think getting the grant is difficult as hell. But the evaluators need to be more specific in their corrections. The best approved proposal - by far - that I read was one from the CAR Panel (2020) that scored 92. If it was in its regular Panel (SOC), it wouldn't be approved. However, I already read proposals with 96-97 scores that had many gaps.

FWO's fellowship in Belgium asks you to address the corrections in a section. Perhaps it is time for the MSCA to do a similar thing that forces more technical corrections.

[Sugus]

Hi, folks!

Congrats to the winners, I'm sure you deserve it!!! There is a luck factor, but you have certainly worked very hard on the proposal. Go for it and enjoy the victory!!

I got a 5 in the impact section. If anyone has a 5 in another section and wants to swap, send me a PM. I don't care about the panel (mine is SOC), it's just to improve the formal structure and small details (according to the reviewers, my proposal is innovative enough, so the idea itself doesn't bother me).

Let's go for the next iteration and don't lose heart!

[mc_paranoia]

Hi guys, just to add that my score is 77,6 EF-ENV if you'd like to note it for the record. In my opinion, minor stuff as weaknesses but c'est la vie... Ranking on March 1 afternoon.
It was great to share this journey with all of you, and I am sorry for all rejected (especially to the users whose writing I followed more) and huge congrats to the winners. Wish you to have a great research and LIFE in the places you have chosen to go. Cheers to all!

[mc_paranoia]

Last year I got 83, my implementation part receive 3.4, this year I got 75, I have not made any major changes to the other parts, just concentrated on the implementation, and implementation was 2.5! excellence dropped from 4.6 to 3.4! The number of months and the budget were wron, and the reviewers claimed that my Turkish, Russian and Chinese were intermediate. Turkish is my native language and I have a PhD in Classical Chinese literature from a Chinese university with a dissertation written in Chinese! Ok, let's put Russian and Chinese aside, how can my native tongue be intermediate, and how do they decide? Furthermore, they found not using archeology for a project on 17th-18th century Mongol diplomacy. We are not talking about neandarthals, Mongol was the lingua franca of Eurasian diplomacy by then, and definitely no need for archeology. I plan to apply for a re-evaluation, because I seriously doubt that they read my proposal, or my CV at all, just skimmed through and gave a random score. They did not even understand that the project is on diplomtic history, they cited cross-cultural exchanges and how my proposal was lacking in them. I mean you do not need a PhD in history to know that diplomacy and cultural exchange are different fields right? Do you think that I can apply for these mistakes on grounds of procedural errors since they obviously invented weaknesses that were not even about the proposal's theme? I will contact my NCP but I would also be grateful for your suggestions as well. I am not hopeful of getting the grant but I want an indiscriminate and just evaluation at this point.

I am really sorry for you, and these calls can be so infuriating because they are in many ways not fair at all.

Thanks for the support, I am actually not angry at not getting the grant, because as I began to see people with 94.4 on the reserve list, I accepted the fact that I did not get it, what is bothering me is the comments, and how unprofessional they were. Yes , you might not like the idea, and try to find some weak points, but you do not invent them such as claiming that the applicant has intermediate reading skills in his native language, or did not use archeology for understanding early modern diplomatic practices. .

I know nothing about any of those subjects, but from what you wrote, yes, you have every right to ask for reevaluation. Your English is impeccable, let alone a native language. From all we could gather, it depends to a very important degree on who you get as an evaluator, same as with publications. Of course that some projects will be appealing to anyone who reads them, but how is it possible that one project gets 90 one year and 70 another; if it's not sad one could even find a "humor" in that.

[FairEnough]

Apart from the probability to get funding from other agencies, what is the advantage of having a certificate seal of excellence?

Could anyone share if have an idea?

Didn't make the cut this time unfortunately, 89.4% EF-LIF. Congrats to everyone who made it!

Does anybody know how/when we would get the Seal of Excellence certificate?

[shnavazani]

For those who are planning to re apply or next year will be their first attemp, please pay more attention to your exellence part. This is the most important thing. If you pass exellence, minor weakness in other parts won't fail you. I got 5 in exellence and 4.3 impact and 4.6 implenation but I got the grant(EF-ENG). Wish you all the best!

[hubirai]

I am really sorry for you, and these calls can be so infuriating because they are in many ways not fair at all.

Thanks for the support, I am actually not angry at not getting the grant, because as I began to see people with 94.4 on the reserve list, I accepted the fact that I did not get it, what is bothering me is the comments, and how unprofessional they were. Yes , you might not like the idea, and try to find some weak points, but you do not invent them such as claiming that the applicant has intermediate reading skills in his native language, or did not use archeology for understanding early modern diplomatic practices. .

Same feeling here. I think getting the grant is difficult as hell. But the evaluators need to be more specific in their corrections. The best approved proposal - by far - that I read was one from the CAR Panel (2020) that scored 92. If it was in its regular Panel (SOC), it wouldn't be approved. However, I already read proposals with 96-97 scores that had many gaps.

FWO's fellowship in Belgium asks you to address the corrections in a section. Perhaps it is time for the MSCA to do a similar thing that forces more technical corrections.

I think making the previous year’s evaluation available, and in fact cumpolsory to view to the reviewers might solve at least some of those problems. It should not be that difficult. Also, an institution with such a high budget and experience can be more careful in inviting evaluators, and even can give evaluation trainings as a compulsory package for becoming an evaluator, it should not be that difficult in this day and age.

[hubirai]

I am really sorry for you, and these calls can be so infuriating because they are in many ways not fair at all.

Thanks for the support, I am actually not angry at not getting the grant, because as I began to see people with 94.4 on the reserve list, I accepted the fact that I did not get it, what is bothering me is the comments, and how unprofessional they were. Yes , you might not like the idea, and try to find some weak points, but you do not invent them such as claiming that the applicant has intermediate reading skills in his native language, or did not use archeology for understanding early modern diplomatic practices. .

I know nothing about any of those subjects, but from what you wrote, yes, you have every right to ask for reevaluation. Your English is impeccable, let alone a native language. From all we could gather, it depends to a very important degree on who you get as an evaluator, same as with publications. Of course that some projects will be appealing to anyone who reads them, but how is it possible that one project gets 90 one year and 70 another; if it's not sad one could even find a "humor" in that.

Thanks for the support, my disappointment is not about not getting the grant but about the impunity of the evaluators in making such comments. As you said, it is even tragicomic to get 4.6 from excellence one year and to get 3.4 the next without a change other than addressing the gender part better which they noted. I think making the previous year’s evaluation available, and paying more money for the evaluators’ time, so that they do not simply skim through, but actually read what is in front of them, and to bring some limitations to the evaluators as well for misconduct might improve the system in the long run.

[skm]

Last year I got 83, my implementation part receive 3.4, this year I got 75, I have not made any major changes to the other parts, just concentrated on the implementation, and implementation was 2.5! excellence dropped from 4.6 to 3.4! The number of months and the budget were wron, and the reviewers claimed that my Turkish, Russian and Chinese were intermediate. Turkish is my native language and I have a PhD in Classical Chinese literature from a Chinese university with a dissertation written in Chinese! Ok, let's put Russian and Chinese aside, how can my native tongue be intermediate, and how do they decide? Furthermore, they found not using archeology for a project on 17th-18th century Mongol diplomacy. We are not talking about neandarthals, Mongol was the lingua franca of Eurasian diplomacy by then, and definitely no need for archeology. I plan to apply for a re-evaluation, because I seriously doubt that they read my proposal, or my CV at all, just skimmed through and gave a random score. They did not even understand that the project is on diplomtic history, they cited cross-cultural exchanges and how my proposal was lacking in them. I mean you do not need a PhD in history to know that diplomacy and cultural exchange are different fields right? Do you think that I can apply for these mistakes on grounds of procedural errors since they obviously invented weaknesses that were not even about the proposal's theme? I will contact my NCP but I would also be grateful for your suggestions as well. I am not hopeful of getting the grant but I want an indiscriminate and just evaluation at this point.

I am really sorry for you, and these calls can be so infuriating because they are in many ways not fair at all.

Thanks for the support, I am actually not angry at not getting the grant, because as I began to see people with 94.4 on the reserve list, I accepted the fact that I did not get it, what is bothering me is the comments, and how unprofessional they were. Yes , you might not like the idea, and try to find some weak points, but you do not invent them such as claiming that the applicant has intermediate reading skills in his native language, or did not use archeology for understanding early modern diplomatic practices. .

i think , rather suggest to write to the authority seeking clarity on the confusion, apparently disclosed by the reviewer/s. No harm in asking/writing to them.