2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

[academic_guru]

Hello everyone again

I personally think it's good that we know we should not extent results soon (thanks Bren and others who posted about if before). This constant wait and forum-refreshing state of mind does not seem very good.

I'm not very optimistic because I made a formal mistake in Form B-2 (without exceeding the maximum page numbers). I know what you are going to say: if I was not careful enough, I probably do not deserve the grant! The truth is that I spent a lot of time on the application but I misunderstood something all along, and only noticed after submission. Please have some understanding and don't trash me yet!

This formal mistake would suggest I should not even pass the 70% threshold! And still, I appeared on Ranking. Paradoxically, I need to have the rejection ASAP because my host organisation told me that, if that were the case, we could prepare alternative ways for me to join the research centre.

If you exceed the Main part of the proposal (Excellence, impact, and implementation) which is 10 pages, the exceeded part will not be shown to the evaluator. However, if it is about the host description in section 5, then you might a get pass. So be optimistic!.

[Rajendra]

Mine too in Evaluation

[evolved]

your panel is?

Mine too in Evaluation

[hmdoel]

Did they also announce the result starting from midnight on 22 Jan 2017?

[Rajendra]

LIF-ST

[amannu]

Still evaluation, Chemistry

[Barbamichou]

Hi guys!

It appears quite clear that what is mentioned on the web link (ranking/evaluation etc.) doesn't mean shit.
Don't try to make any correlation or assumption as you can easily imagine that the European Commission has tons of shields to avoid this kind of obvious leaks. In other words, please don't flood, it is very annoying scrolling pages and pages of wild-guess. Waiting for official announcements still is the most reliable information you will get.

I read with a particular attention what you guys discussed regarding the weight of your CV in the evaluation. From my experience and lots of discussion with PIs in my field (plant biology), either with ridiculous h-index or not:

- yes, a good CV makes it look better
- yes, a "less-good" CV has to be compensated by a really good project, with well thought-through experiments, and only little pitfalls.
- yes, a good CV combined with a really good project can still be rejected, as the degree of randomness is just enormous.
- proposal writing is all about keywords and key sentences.

Don't forget that evaluators often review 10-20 proposals within 3 weeks to give a final note. That said, do not assume that every subtleties you wrote in your proposal will be considered as is. You can abuse of bold font to emphasize what is really important. It makes the proposal clearer. Overall, the evaluators need to find essential information and keywords really easily. Proposals fail if the presentation is tedious (off course there are always exceptions).
I don't know whether you took a look to the list of reviewers from last years, but Marie Curie proposals are not evaluated, at least in my field or related topics, by real experts with a PI activity. This makes my point even stronger: if you do not take his/her hand, he/she will destroy your proposal.

[kassiek]

When I was writing I was also told that we needed to clearly tie everything to initiatives and use some of their popular buzzwords. It feels so odd, but I guess that’s how they get away with not using actual experts in your area.

[keep_chr]

they are not so wild.

[Barbamichou]

they are not so wild.

I'm pretty sure I can find 37 contradictory posts from the past two days