2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)

[AdinaBabesh]

In the last year ESR under the Excellence part I had a comment which suggested that although I am working in an international project this is not reflected in my publications. It was my mistake for not arranging the publications in the CV under the research projects they have been published, otherwise this comment wouldn't have existed. So considering this, I am not so sure they don't evaluate the CVs as well ...

[megasphaera]

I'm quite sure that the majority opinion here (that number of publications is not important, at least not officially) is absolutely and completely wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to call that a very silly point of view to have in academia.

In the guide for writing, it was clearly stated that your publication record is important. And you must highlight it. Especially to indicate that you are capable of carrying out the project if it gets accepted. What matters is for your field and for your level of expertise, is your publication record sufficient. Another important point is to judge your expertise in the area you want to carry out research in. The only way to showing this is your publication record in the area. Heck, the explicitly tell you to highlight the journals you published in and the conferences you presented in.

Several sources have compiled common positive and negative review points for proposals. And the publication and conference record was an important point in all of them (both positive and negative).

However, you can't compare the publication record of one person in Mathematics immediately after their PhD, and someone else in Biology 5 years after their PhD, and then make a conclusion on that. Both the field and the experience levels are very important.


And a quick search in the reviewers guide also says the exact same thing:

Don't penalize proposals if you think that the researchers' amount of publications is too low; however, you can penalize proposals if you think that the amount of publications is too low given his/her level of experience, and this may affect his/her professional development as an independent/mature researcher during the fellowship.

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... uators.pdf (This is the 2018 version)

This exactly. This should end the personal opinion nonsense without backup.

First of all, relax, I don't think you have the backup either to end someone else opinion. So calm down and read what people are writing.
Second thing: of course publications are very important to get this fellowship, but is not the most important thing. They are important as long the project you are proposing is excellent. As I said I know people with nature papers that did not get the fellowship. I also know of people that did not have a good publication record given their career and they still got the fellowship (the reviewer wrote on the evaluation that their record was not that good). I know that they can penalise the fellowship for not having a good publication record, but if the proposal is excellent you will still get it.

Of course my opinion is based on the experience of couple of people I know, and it is not representative of 10000 applications but so is your opinion. They can write whatever they want on the guidelines, but reality is different: there will be reviewers that look at publications and reviewers that do not. Again, is pure luck.

And again no one said that they don't look at CV

[Kenniz]

I'm quite sure that the majority opinion here (that number of publications is not important, at least not officially) is absolutely and completely wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to call that a very silly point of view to have in academia.

In the guide for writing, it was clearly stated that your publication record is important. And you must highlight it. Especially to indicate that you are capable of carrying out the project if it gets accepted. What matters is for your field and for your level of expertise, is your publication record sufficient. Another important point is to judge your expertise in the area you want to carry out research in. The only way to showing this is your publication record in the area. Heck, the explicitly tell you to highlight the journals you published in and the conferences you presented in.

Several sources have compiled common positive and negative review points for proposals. And the publication and conference record was an important point in all of them (both positive and negative).

However, you can't compare the publication record of one person in Mathematics immediately after their PhD, and someone else in Biology 5 years after their PhD, and then make a conclusion on that. Both the field and the experience levels are very important.


And a quick search in the reviewers guide also says the exact same thing:



Source: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... uators.pdf (This is the 2018 version)

This exactly. This should end the personal opinion nonsense without backup.

First of all, relax, I don't think you have the backup either to end someone else opinion. So calm down and read what people are writing.
Second thing: of course publications are very important to get this fellowship, but is not the most important thing. They are important as long the project you are proposing is excellent. As I said I know people with nature papers that did not get the fellowship. I also know of people that did not have a good publication record given their career and they still got the fellowship (the reviewer wrote on the evaluation that their record was not that good). I know that they can penalise the fellowship for not having a good publication record, but if the proposal is excellent you will still get it.

Of course my opinion is based on the experience of couple of people I know, and it is not representative of 10000 applications but so is your opinion. They can write whatever they want on the guidelines, but reality is different: there will be reviewers that look at publications and reviewers that do not. Again, is pure luck.

And again no one said that they don't look at CV

First of all, this is not my opinion, it is an official guideline where they state that publications are taken into account.
2nd, people said that publications are not taken into account, and if so, only by stupid reviewers.
3rd, i never said that publications are the most important thing, in fact, i explicitly stated that everything has to be weighed and that especially for MSCA the publication relevance is much smaller compared to other fellowships.
4th, i am relaxed
5th, speculations about publications being taken into account (officially, what they do in private is just irrelevant speculation) or not are over now because it is stated in the official guidelines

[MSCA_CHEM_2019]

During the preparation of the proposal, I read that it was important to highlight the most important aspects in point 1.4 (I don't
remember well). Among these aspects, the first authorship of articles, scholarships, congresses ... everything that can show that you have research independence to carry out the MSCA proposal (if I am wrong, please correct me). I guess this point is strictly related to the CV and is a way to "evaluate" the achievements so far. This is my opinion.
However, we must know that although we do not win the fellowship, it does not mean that our work does not matter. It's just luck.

[megasphaera]

This exactly. This should end the personal opinion nonsense without backup.

First of all, relax, I don't think you have the backup either to end someone else opinion. So calm down and read what people are writing.
Second thing: of course publications are very important to get this fellowship, but is not the most important thing. They are important as long the project you are proposing is excellent. As I said I know people with nature papers that did not get the fellowship. I also know of people that did not have a good publication record given their career and they still got the fellowship (the reviewer wrote on the evaluation that their record was not that good). I know that they can penalise the fellowship for not having a good publication record, but if the proposal is excellent you will still get it.

Of course my opinion is based on the experience of couple of people I know, and it is not representative of 10000 applications but so is your opinion. They can write whatever they want on the guidelines, but reality is different: there will be reviewers that look at publications and reviewers that do not. Again, is pure luck.

And again no one said that they don't look at CV

First of all, this is not my opinion, it is an official guideline where they state that publications are taken into account.
2nd, people said that publications are not taken into account, and if so, only by stupid reviewers.
3rd, i never said that publications are the most important thing, in fact, i explicitly stated that everything has to be weighed and that especially for MSCA the publication relevance is much smaller compared to other fellowships.
4th, i am relaxed
5th, speculations about publications being taken into account (officially, what they do in private is just irrelevant speculation) or not are over now because it is stated in the official guidelines

I never said that publication are taken into account by stupid reviewer. I said that the comment publication output is low considering stage is made from a stupid reviewer. And that is my opinion and I have the right to express it as long as I want.

If I said that publication are not important, well my mistake. They are important. My point was to say to that person that raised the question not to worry bout the commentary from the reviewer.

[AnnaMC]

So... three weeks to go!

[Kenniz]

Cv usually has no impact on outcome. May I ask you to share the comment you have received?

They wrote "The publication record of the researcher is limited for their level of expertise"

Don't pay attention to the comment you received. The number of publications has no impact. However, there are always reviewers that are stupid and have not read the manual for evaluators.
Getting this fellowship is pure luck (whether or not you get reviewers that like your project and thinks is an excellent one).

no you said the reviewer was stupid because he did not read the guidelines (i.e. the guidelines you proposed that state publications should not be included), meaning that the reviewer was stupid because he took the publication amount into account, according to you.
maybe you should relax?

[MSCA_SOC_2019]

For sure it also depend on the panel !
Publication record is certainly more important for natural sciences than for humanities. The publication rate is not the same.
I never said that the publications are not taken into account but we must put their importance into perspective...
The ones of the supervisor should be more important !

This exactly. This should end the personal opinion nonsense without backup.

First of all, relax, I don't think you have the backup either to end someone else opinion. So calm down and read what people are writing.
Second thing: of course publications are very important to get this fellowship, but is not the most important thing. They are important as long the project you are proposing is excellent. As I said I know people with nature papers that did not get the fellowship. I also know of people that did not have a good publication record given their career and they still got the fellowship (the reviewer wrote on the evaluation that their record was not that good). I know that they can penalise the fellowship for not having a good publication record, but if the proposal is excellent you will still get it.

Of course my opinion is based on the experience of couple of people I know, and it is not representative of 10000 applications but so is your opinion. They can write whatever they want on the guidelines, but reality is different: there will be reviewers that look at publications and reviewers that do not. Again, is pure luck.

And again no one said that they don't look at CV

First of all, this is not my opinion, it is an official guideline where they state that publications are taken into account.
2nd, people said that publications are not taken into account, and if so, only by stupid reviewers.
3rd, i never said that publications are the most important thing, in fact, i explicitly stated that everything has to be weighed and that especially for MSCA the publication relevance is much smaller compared to other fellowships.
4th, i am relaxed
5th, speculations about publications being taken into account (officially, what they do in private is just irrelevant speculation) or not are over now because it is stated in the official guidelines

[MSCA_SOC_2019]

It is becoming to be funny reading the posts here

So... three weeks to go!

[MSCA_CHEM_2019]

It is becoming to be funny reading the posts here

So... three weeks to go!