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

[Vency]

They just uploaded an 'ethics report" in my documents, saying the proposal is "ethics ready"!! Did nit receive an ethics report last year

Id: 845

Where did you find it?

[MSCA-IF-CAR_2018]

Document library

They just uploaded an 'ethics report" in my documents, saying the proposal is "ethics ready"!! Did nit receive an ethics report last year

Id: 845

Where did you find it?

[Perserker]

Persons month. Its the second time ive seen it being critisized but i still dont know what the heck this is!

In my case, most of what's listed as "weaknesses" are actually questions that could have been easily answered. Like, how well do you speak the languages of the case countries? - Fluently, please refer to the resume. Or, Have you considered gender aspects? - Yes, I have but my focus is on social meanings shares by both genders. Etc, etc. What's frustrating is that even though the projects is relatively highly scored, the reviews look sloppy. This year's reviews contradict last year's and it is clear that even though specifically asked to consider previous feedback this year's reviewers did not bother to reconcile the differences in opinion. There is also a factually erroneous comment which states that the time frame of the analysis is not mentioned (it is).

No idea how. But to me, this is a total lottery. Evaluation process is nothing but subjective.

Agree with you. As an example, last year gantt chart was amazing, very organized and clear. This year, it was the same, with the only addition of persons-months and they said that it is a mess and not clear. WTF!

[CatalysaurusRex]

Oh wow, I got funded! 844xxx here, got the email at 9:06 am. 97.4% in CHE panel.

[MSCA-IF-CAR_2018]

Congrats,

Do you have an "Ethics Appraisal Report" uploaded today as well ?

Oh wow, I got funded! 844xxx here, got the email at 9:06 am. 97.4% in CHE panel.

[kassiek]

So we’re at about 845xxx?

[Vency]

Document library

They just uploaded an 'ethics report" in my documents, saying the proposal is "ethics ready"!! Did nit receive an ethics report last year

Id: 845

Where did you find it?

Thanks!

[Geezer_MSCA]

Just found out
CAR-LIF panel. Rejected with 79.4. I am in free fall, it seems.
In 2016 I got 90.2 with 3 weeks of work. 2017: 84 with 2 months of work. And then this year (2 months of work as well).
Same project and this year's proposal was the best articulated so far, in my opinion and also the supervisor's
Well, I knew this is a lottery and I am stomach-breathing to calm down.

For the successful ones: cheers guys

[CatalysaurusRex]

Yes, that's in the portal available for download.

Congrats,

Do you have an "Ethics Appraisal Report" uploaded today as well ?

Oh wow, I got funded! 844xxx here, got the email at 9:06 am. 97.4% in CHE panel.

[Dajm]

Same here. Last year - Gantt chart very clear and well-organized. This year added more fieldwork (totally unnecessary but adamantly requested by last year's reviews) so broke it down a bit further (from uni terms to calendar months, rest stayed the same) and it suddenly stopped making any sense to the reviewers . Last year I disagreed with some of the reviewer comments but at least I could see where they were coming from. This year it's literally like: how can one possibly be listing as "weaknesses" the obvious strengths of the project? .

In my case, most of what's listed as "weaknesses" are actually questions that could have been easily answered. Like, how well do you speak the languages of the case countries? - Fluently, please refer to the resume. Or, Have you considered gender aspects? - Yes, I have but my focus is on social meanings shares by both genders. Etc, etc. What's frustrating is that even though the projects is relatively highly scored, the reviews look sloppy. This year's reviews contradict last year's and it is clear that even though specifically asked to consider previous feedback this year's reviewers did not bother to reconcile the differences in opinion. There is also a factually erroneous comment which states that the time frame of the analysis is not mentioned (it is).

No idea how. But to me, this is a total lottery. Evaluation process is nothing but subjective.

Agree with you. As an example, last year gantt chart was amazing, very organized and clear. This year, it was the same, with the only addition of persons-months and they said that it is a mess and not clear. WTF!