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

[Kitten]

I am so missing this forum already...and feeling a bit deflated about not getting funded. I wonder why have I spent 3 months of my life working on this

[Kitten]

What score did you get SOC-2018 - mine went down from last year - very disheartening

[Waiting00]

Hi!
Any new of how to get information of the position in the reserve list?
Thanks!

[Kitten]

Sorry I don't know how to find your position on the reserve list but suspect the NCP will know - maybe someone else can confirm?

[mariecuriejoke]

Tried three times since 2014, and failed every single time (always around 85), finally decided to give up a year ago when I realised it is a total waste of time (contradictory comments also occurred to my case). After reading some posts here, all I want to say is it's not just SOME flaws in the reviewing process, in fact, there are many flaws and some critical. All these flaws make the entire thing almost purely based on luck, and very little to do with the actual quality of the proposal and the candidate.

I happen to have friends who reviewed MC proposals in the past. I was told each proposal was reviewed by two reviewers, and the third reviewer compiled all the feedback and prepared the final report. The idea of having a third reviewer was to make sure there were no huge differences between the other two, and if necessary, review the proposal again for final decision. But in reality, everyone's busy and got their own jobs, they can only review all the proposals in their spare time (20+ for one reviewer, and have to finish in one month). So most of them won't bother with the consistency between the comments, and basically just listed all the comments together and give the final score. I was told they usually only spend 30 mins on each proposal...

Also considering the huge number of proposals (8000+), it is impossible for MC to ensure every proposal is reviewed by someone in the similar field. This means if your proposal is not in the area that everyone can relate or can easily grasp the idea (e.g., cancer research, food science, literature, AI etc.), your chance of winning it is close to zero. My proposals were good example for this. As a chemical engineer, all my proposals were about certain processes that most people had never heard of. I had to spend pages to explain the concept so the reviewer can understand the process and realise the importance of the project because I knew 100% for sure that the reviewers will have no knowledge of my field, and even worse, never even heard of it. With this pages-long explanation, I am sure most of the reviewers won't bother try to understand it, and the decision to reject it was already made only after reading the first paragraph. I can imagine their mind goes like this: "oh dear, this is so outside my area and my common knowledge, I got bored already only after one paragraph. I don't want to spend the entire evening reading through this damn thing."

[sound]

Yes you are right. NcP would know.

Sorry I don't know how to find your position on the reserve list but suspect the NCP will know - maybe someone else can confirm?

[Bren]

Miss posting and chatting here.

[AdinaBabesh]

I agree, the evaluation is contradictory as well for my case. I've sent an email to REA, wait for their response, and I plan to request a second evaluation.

This has been discussed earlier in the thread, and it looks like unfortunately, instead of discussing points of criticism as they are instructed to, the reviewers are merely cut-and-pasting individual comments to save time.

it is hilarious! I feel so sorry for myself putting that much time and effort into my proposal!

Strength: The adopted solutions for managing the potential risks of the action are satisfactorily described.

weakness(es):
1. The domain and theme of the research represent the biggest risk, the anticipation of which is insufficiently considered by the researcher.
2. Although two risks are mentioned and proposed solutions listed, there is insufficient information on the risk that the researcher would be exposed to with respect to the potential censorship.
3. The risk assessment does not sufficiently consider the political and cultural sensitivities that may hinder the interviewees' ability or willingness to participate in the project, and give a sufficiently complete and accurate account of the situation.


OK! I got it! Maybe I have not fully considered the potential risks in detail, but is it really necessary to give three comments (with exactly the same content but different wording) to remind me of them?????!

[lolome]

Miss posting and chatting here.

Me too!

[AdinaBabesh]

I think we need to ask for re-evaluations. We need to ask for concrete actions from their side.

Hey sevenrain. Sorry this happened to you as well. I don't think there is a real possibility of re-evaluation but some of us in a similar position are putting together a letter of complaint re: the review process. Please, let me know if you would be interested in joining. x

Got my results back, 85.4% (4.4/4.3/3.9), it being a re-submission from last year. A few head scratchers here, my Impact decreased from 4.5 to 4.3. The most glaring part were the contradictions in the Strengths of the Excellence versus the Weakness in the Impact, relative to my host institution and its learning/research environment.

Excellence - Strengths
- The appropriateness of the research environment of the host institution , which is world-leading in archaeology, for the proposed project is well-established.
-The proposal clearly identifies the ways in which the researcher can contribute knowledge and skills to the host institution.
- The proposal establishes the supervisor's research expertise and experience in supervising doctoral and postdoctoral projects.
- There is clearly a well-established team working in cognate areas within the host institution. The proposal adequately addresses the ways in which the researcher would be integrated into the wider learning environment of the host institution. There is also evidence that the researcher is already publishing alongside faculty members.

Excellence - Weakness
-The proposal does not explain training opportunities made available at the host institution sufficiently clearly and articulately

Impact - Weakness
- The researcher was previously based at the host institution for a PhD, and the proposal does not present the added value for the researcher's career trajectory of being based at the host institution during the fellowship sufficiently convincingly.

I'm thinking of pursuing an evaluation review relative to these. Any thoughts?