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

[MC2020CAR]

98 %, main list
894XXX

SO happy and relieved!

Wow! Congratulations

It's a hell of a score! Congratulations! Which panel are you in?

[aZr]

98 %, main list
894XXX

SO happy and relieved!

congrats

[Simbi]

Guys how do you know if you are in main list or reserve? I got the email for grant agreement and I fetched my score... that's it? No congratulations or I didn't get it?

[MSCA_SOC_2019]

Guys how do you know if you are in main list or reserve? I got the email for grant agreement and I fetched my score... that's it? No congratulations or I didn't get it?

They don't bother with congratulations.
But Congrats anyway

[meatuk]

Rejection! 85.60 score, saw it portal. There was notification, and clicked on the follow up, processed documents which now has evaluation reports.

ID 895****

[Kranthi Maniam]

If you look at the process history
1. EU submitted the proposal on sep 11, 2019
2. EU ranked the proposal and invited to prepare grant on Feb 4, 2020 5:40 am
3. EU requested declarations on feb 4,2020 5: 49 am
4. EU requested data on Feb 4, 2020 5:50 am

Next to the phase, there is a flag icon and below that 2 is displayed. if you click that 2 then you will be directed to grant agreement and declaration of honour
If you look at the grant management services, on the left the details of the project along with current phase is displayed. My current phase is grant preparation. I tried to look for the evaluation report under my projects and other areas. but there is no report available

[hopefulacademic]

Was asleep and woke up and stupidly checked my email. Got rejected (ST-SOC) with 78% which is a 10% drop from last year. That means I don't even have a seal of excellence so it has all been for nothing. This is quite a blow and I don't really know how to go on from here. On to the comments (listing scores and weaknesses):
excellence 3,80, previous 4,30

- It is not entirely clear from the application how novel is the project compared to the researcher’s own previous creative and research experience. New improvements are unclearly presented.
- The state-of-the-art review does not provide sufficient detail on the relation between this research and other research in the field.
- It is not well specified what forms would be used to transfer applicant expertise to the host institution.
- The courses the applicant would be taking at the host institution are inadequately specified. - It is not entirely clear how the supervisor's expertise will be transferred to the applicant.
impact 4,00, previous 4,40
- The plan for academic publications resulting from the project is not sufficiently explored. The proposed dissemination activities for a 24- month research projects are limited in scope. The exact details of journal articles or monograph publications the researcher aims presenting, lack sufficient details.
- Communication to policy makers and especially to relevant industry stakeholders, significant for the project, are inadequately planned.
- The plans to communicate the results to industry and artistic communities outside the country of research are insufficiently developed.
implementation 4,00, previous 4,70
- Dissemination activities are not clearly allocated in the work plan and related time and resources are insufficiently justified - The work packages, and in particular deliverables and milestones are not described in a detailed way.

I worked hard on improving my application from last year and worked on teh weaknesses there only to see this big list of weaknesses. A lot of them seem bogus reasons to subtract points: what courses would I be taking, academic outputs not sufficiently specified (I gave journal and conference titles though), WP's: in the last proposal they specifically asked less WPs which I did and specified in quite big detail.

[AdinaBabesh]

I got 90.60, I am in the CAR panel. I haven't yet received the email, I just saw the ESR it in the Portal. I have 4.30 for Excellence with two relevant weaknesses, 4.80 for Impact with no weakness (so I don't get the score) and 4.70 for Implementation with one weakness. I also have an Ethics clearance letter which could indicate I am in the main list. Also, based on what Dreamer told me.

This is my second application, last year I got 75. It is not a resubmission, as I have changed the panel and the supervisor. I kept the host institution. However, I have addressed all the comments from my previous ESR and a bit more.

Good luck everyone with your current application and future ones. If you would like some specific input from my end, please send me pm. I will stay around however.

[SPIN2019]

Congrts, whats your ID and panel?

I got 90.60, I am in the CAR panel. I haven't yet received the email, I just saw the ESR it in the Portal. I have 4.30 for Excellence with two relevant weaknesses, 4.80 for Impact with no weakness (so I don't get the score) and 4.70 for Implementation with one weakness. I also have an Ethics clearance letter which could indicate I am in the main list. Also, based on what Dreamer told me.

This is my second application, last year I got 75. It is not a resubmission, as I have changed the panel and the supervisor. I kept the host institution. However, I have addressed all the comments from my previous ESR and a bit more.

Good luck everyone with your current application and future ones. If you would like some specific input from my end, please send me pm. I will stay around however.

[Trufflethor]

Hey guys,

just got my rejection (MSCA-IF-EF-ST - score - 88). I gotta say, most comments are quite general, of the sorts I have read before here, conerning targeted publication number too high or dissemination not properly defined, which is fine.

What I am sure though cost me the grant was the excellenece (4.20), since I purposefully stayed vague since we work together with a company that do not want to reveal exactly the idea, and some parts not being exactly identified was picked up. Kinda set us up for failure there .

Anyway, cheers and I guess thanks for the conjunct suffering.

Cheers!