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

[Dajm]

I understand the problems, and the aim of reaching out to the Commission, but I'm trying to assess the most impactful way of doing this.
Maybe it isn't to reach out to the commission at all, but rather to write an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or an Op-Ed in Nature or something.

Count me in, I was indeed thinking something similar, maybe a letter to an editor. We should highlight the weaknesses of their system. I would be happy to co-author...

Let's do this quick and while it still hurts . What's a good place to organise a more private online conversation on this? Someone mention Reddit, I don't know how that works but I will find out.

[Dajm]

Adina, unfortunately, the reviewers are specifically instructed to use this kind of language by the MCSA (see reviewer manual). Which does not excuse them for deducting points without any justification, using factually wrong statements against the applicants, etc - all the mistakes I have already summarised in one my previous posts here and that I think we should focus on. There is ambiguous and there's plain wrong.

Flagged? Why to be flagged?

I think the article should put together all the weak points the evaluation process contained (e.g. the sloppy evaluations, the contradictions, the too general/subjective language, the lack of arguments to support the statements, etc).

For examples, I have comments like: it is not sufficiently convincing, insufficiently clear, is not convincingly justified. What do the experts mean by that? What is sufficient and not sufficient, what is convincing and not convincing?

Before we proceed with an article, can we evaluate the impact that his might have?
Would we be flagged in future grant applications? [and if we do write the article, this fear of reprisal should be in it].
Would the article be strong enough to be a statement on research funding? Or would it appear like a bunch of rejected applicants complaining?

[AdinaBabesh]

Then this is a problem. I don't find it quite fair to ask the applicant to provide as many details as possible, and you as a review provide a general and subjective evaluation, which contradicts itself from time to time.

Adina, unfortunately, the reviewers are specifically instructed to use this kind of language by the MCSA (see reviewer manual). Which does not excuse them for deducting points without any justification, using factually wrong statements against the applicants, etc - all the mistakes I have already summarised in one my previous posts here and that I think we should focus on. There is ambiguous and there's plain wrong.

Flagged? Why to be flagged?

I think the article should put together all the weak points the evaluation process contained (e.g. the sloppy evaluations, the contradictions, the too general/subjective language, the lack of arguments to support the statements, etc).

For examples, I have comments like: it is not sufficiently convincing, insufficiently clear, is not convincingly justified. What do the experts mean by that? What is sufficient and not sufficient, what is convincing and not convincing?

Before we proceed with an article, can we evaluate the impact that his might have?
Would we be flagged in future grant applications? [and if we do write the article, this fear of reprisal should be in it].
Would the article be strong enough to be a statement on research funding? Or would it appear like a bunch of rejected applicants complaining?

[Dajm]

I don't like it either but it's their moneis and their rules..

Then this is a problem. I don't find it quite fair to ask the applicant to provide as many details as possible, and you as a review provide a general and subjective evaluation, which contradicts itself from time to time.

Adina, unfortunately, the reviewers are specifically instructed to use this kind of language by the MCSA (see reviewer manual). Which does not excuse them for deducting points without any justification, using factually wrong statements against the applicants, etc - all the mistakes I have already summarised in one my previous posts here and that I think we should focus on. There is ambiguous and there's plain wrong.

Flagged? Why to be flagged?

I think the article should put together all the weak points the evaluation process contained (e.g. the sloppy evaluations, the contradictions, the too general/subjective language, the lack of arguments to support the statements, etc).

For examples, I have comments like: it is not sufficiently convincing, insufficiently clear, is not convincingly justified. What do the experts mean by that? What is sufficient and not sufficient, what is convincing and not convincing?

[CountZ]

I'll create a private forum here for people who want to work on this, and a Google Drive for us to collaborate.

I understand the problems, and the aim of reaching out to the Commission, but I'm trying to assess the most impactful way of doing this.

Count me in, I was indeed thinking something similar, maybe a letter to an editor. We should highlight the weaknesses of their system. I would be happy to co-author...

Let's do this quick and while it still hurts . What's a good place to organise a more private online conversation on this? Someone mention Reddit, I don't know how that works but I will find out.

[AdinaBabesh]

No, not their money, but public money ...

I don't like it either but it's their moneis and their rules..

Then this is a problem. I don't find it quite fair to ask the applicant to provide as many details as possible, and you as a review provide a general and subjective evaluation, which contradicts itself from time to time.

Adina, unfortunately, the reviewers are specifically instructed to use this kind of language by the MCSA (see reviewer manual). Which does not excuse them for deducting points without any justification, using factually wrong statements against the applicants, etc - all the mistakes I have already summarised in one my previous posts here and that I think we should focus on. There is ambiguous and there's plain wrong.

[Dajm]

Ok, public money but still their rules of the game .

No, not their money, but public money ...

I don't like it either but it's their moneis and their rules..

Then this is a problem. I don't find it quite fair to ask the applicant to provide as many details as possible, and you as a review provide a general and subjective evaluation, which contradicts itself from time to time.

[Barbamichou]

Hey guys,
got funded with 96.4 (Standard EF, LIFE panel). I already accepted another funded position elsewhere, so I will decline the Marie Curie, so keep crossing fingers for all those in the reserve list, at least one position will be awarded!

Keeping everything crossed you will get the opportunity you need/deserve

Cheers

[Dajm]

Thank you!

Count me in, I was indeed thinking something similar, maybe a letter to an editor. We should highlight the weaknesses of their system. I would be happy to co-author...

Let's do this quick and while it still hurts . What's a good place to organise a more private online conversation on this? Someone mention Reddit, I don't know how that works but I will find out.

I'll create a private forum here for people who want to work on this, and a Google Drive for us to collaborate.

[RADium]

Holy cats, I am funded, 99.6 SOC, 840xxx. The comments are an interesting insight into this magical world of evaluation--many quote directly from my proposal, just further underscoring the luck factor. I suspect many other evaluators are not so thorough...