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

[MVS]

And no new info on Twitter, either...

Lol, maybe they recognize the number

I really can’t concentrate on work today!

Brussels doesn't pick the phone anymore!

[evolved]

If that's true then:
1) Why they don't pick up the phone?
2) Why they haven't announced a specific date and said vaguely "next week"? This is not professional. Also why the NCPs know nothing?
3) They already said they have issues with the widening fellowships. Also, if you look at the guide, its not clear at all how these will be attributed.
4) Why not more transparency on how results will be released? Date, hour, email, participant portal. There is so much we don’t know. Why the secrecy?
5) Why they hide how precisely the decisions were made? Where are the reviewer individual scores?

Why you think this? I mean in 2015 results were released February 6 (with less applications) and I do not think they did a mess. I am confident that they are doing what they can. Widening fellowship is for sure an element of complication but gives more chances to some people, which is always good.

Something that worries me is that they really f... up and we are going to see strange results. Like weird cut-offs, success rates e.t.c. because they couldn't properly attribute the funds to the widening countries.

[kassiek]

Hopefully they aren't having to do any last minute re-ranking. I can just imagine that there was a reviewer that was found to be bias or something. That's really just my imagination running wild.

They said the 12th, so any day before that is a gift...and I will take it as such.

[lolome]

+1

Hopefully they aren't having to do any last minute re-ranking. I can just imagine that there was a reviewer that was found to be bias or something. That's really just my imagination running wild.

They said the 12th, so any day before that is a gift...and I will take it as such.

[Thana2019]

I am sure they are not answering the phone because otherwise they would get no work done

Also: they have announced a specific date, namely 12 Feb. So far I see no indication that they are anything less than highly professional in their communication tbh.

If that's true then:
1) Why they don't pick up the phone?
2) Why they haven't announced a specific date and said vaguely "next week"? This is not professional. Also why the NCPs know nothing?
3) They already said they have issues with the widening fellowships. Also, if you look at the guide, its not clear at all how these will be attributed.
4) Why not more transparency on how results will be released? Date, hour, email, participant portal. There is so much we don’t know. Why the secrecy?
5) Why they hide how precisely the decisions were made? Where are the reviewer individual scores?

Why you think this? I mean in 2015 results were released February 6 (with less applications) and I do not think they did a mess. I am confident that they are doing what they can. Widening fellowship is for sure an element of complication but gives more chances to some people, which is always good.

Something that worries me is that they really f... up and we are going to see strange results. Like weird cut-offs, success rates e.t.c. because they couldn't properly attribute the funds to the widening countries.

[expert_pastMC]

If that's true then:
1) Why they don't pick up the phone?
2) Why they haven't announced a specific date and said vaguely "next week"? This is not professional. Also why the NCPs know nothing?
3) They already said they have issues with the widening fellowships. Also, if you look at the guide, its not clear at all how these will be attributed.
4) Why not more transparency on how results will be released? Date, hour, email, participant portal. There is so much we don’t know. Why the secrecy?
5) Why they hide how precisely the decisions were made? Where are the reviewer individual scores?

The announced date is the 12th of February, so no real secrecy here nor unprofessionalism. (We are going crazy but this is not their fault) Where have they said officially that they have issues with the widening fellowships? And they don't hide how precisely decisions are made - we are made aware of the whole process. What kind of information would the reviewers' individual scores give you? There is a consensus period of evaluation where reviewers discuss for each proposal they have evaluated and there is a vice-chair who oversees the whole process. There is enough transparency I would say.

[fr489]

I think we are mixing some elements here. Of course they have been professional and we imagine they are doing their best. The problem has been the contradictory info we have received from several players involved in the process (some of them in Brussels). Certain people gave us hopes to have the results released already last week, and that has not helped. It would have been nice of them to set a specific date (even if this were the 12 February). We would have fully respected it, and perhaps we would have been more productive meanwhile.

[Bren]

I just got word back from someone I have been in contact with in the commission, and, I quote:

'Unfortunately, we cannot disclose the date because last minute changes might happen. The results should be out by the end of the working week'.

[evolved]

releasing on a date other than the supposed 12 February is not a gift.

can you imagine if the same thing happened with the national exams? for example a-levels? You can see the "date" even on newspapers. Candidates are informed of the precise date in advance rather than getting the email at a random day without any official release/information.

How is it possible that at this stage they dont know the precise date? How can it be so uncertain? what is the unknown factor that makes them not know the date? And not make an official release of the date and hour!!!!
come on!!

If that's true then:
1) Why they don't pick up the phone?
2) Why they haven't announced a specific date and said vaguely "next week"? This is not professional. Also why the NCPs know nothing?
3) They already said they have issues with the widening fellowships. Also, if you look at the guide, its not clear at all how these will be attributed.
4) Why not more transparency on how results will be released? Date, hour, email, participant portal. There is so much we don’t know. Why the secrecy?
5) Why they hide how precisely the decisions were made? Where are the reviewer individual scores?

The announced date is the 12th of February, so no real secrecy here nor unprofessionalism. (We are going crazy but this is not their fault) Where have they said officially that they have issues with the widening fellowships? And they don't hide how precisely decisions are made - we are made aware of the whole process. What kind of information would the reviewers' individual scores give you? There is a consensus period of evaluation where reviewers discuss for each proposal they have evaluated and there is a vice-chair who oversees the whole process. There is enough transparency I would say.

[Thana2019]

Argh

I just got word back from someone I have been in contact with in the commission, and, I quote:

'Unfortunately, we cannot disclose the date because last minute changes might happen. The results should be out by the end of the working week'.