Talk Academia

So, for those rejected folks, will your potential host still want to hire you in the following future? Not for me - it was a top-level international host that has a huge demand from researchers to have an affiliation. Mine is a top UK uni/one of the best in the world and crazy competitive, so out o...

RADium wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:43 pm

Holy cats, I am funded, 99.6 SOC, 840xxx. The comments are an interesting insight into this magical world of evaluation--many quote directly from my proposal, just further underscoring the luck factor. I suspect many other evaluators are not so thorough...

Congrats, your score rocks!

Thank you! Count me in, I was indeed thinking something similar, maybe a letter to an editor. We should highlight the weaknesses of their system. I would be happy to co-author... Let's do this quick and while it still hurts ;). What's a good place to organise a more private online conversation on th...

Ok, public money but still their rules of the game ;-). No, not their money, but public money ... I don't like it either but it's their moneis and their rules.. ;) Then this is a problem. I don't find it quite fair to ask the applicant to provide as many details as possible, and you as a review prov...

I don't like it either but it's their moneis and their rules.. ;) Then this is a problem. I don't find it quite fair to ask the applicant to provide as many details as possible, and you as a review provide a general and subjective evaluation, which contradicts itself from time to time. Adina, unfort...

Adina, unfortunately, the reviewers are specifically instructed to use this kind of language by the MCSA (see reviewer manual). Which does not excuse them for deducting points without any justification, using factually wrong statements against the applicants, etc - all the mistakes I have already su...

I understand the problems, and the aim of reaching out to the Commission, but I'm trying to assess the most impactful way of doing this. Maybe it isn't to reach out to the commission at all, but rather to write an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or an Op-Ed in Nature or something. Count me in...

Before we proceed with an article, can we evaluate the impact that his might have? I personally would aim to simply bring the poor quality of reviews to MC people's attention and ask them to improve their benchmarking standards. A letter of complaint listing actual mistakes (no justification for de...

I understand the problems, and the aim of reaching out to the Commission, but I'm trying to assess the most impactful way of doing this. Maybe it isn't to reach out to the commission at all, but rather to write an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or an Op-Ed in Nature or something. I am happy ...

Get the reviewers to do their job or hire better reviewers. Justify deducted points substantively. Reach consensus before combining individual scores, don't just pile individual comments together. Consider previous years evaluations in resubmission cases. Have an open mind, think outside disciplina...