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

[IF ST LIF]

Didn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.

[AdinaBabesh]

Can you tell us more about the appeal process?

This sounds extremely unprofessional.

I know there is no appeal process but I at least would like ton provide some feedback on unprofessional reviews back to the grant administrators. Please, let me know if you think we could put together a collective complaint of sorts (presumably, a more efficient way than individual feedback) you.

Didn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.

[Dajm]

I believe there isnt one..

Can you tell us more about the appeal process?

This sounds extremely unprofessional.

I know there is no appeal process but I at least would like ton provide some feedback on unprofessional reviews back to the grant administrators. Please, let me know if you think we could put together a collective complaint of sorts (presumably, a more efficient way than individual feedback) you.

Didn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.

[Giu83]

Just to say, I scored 4,70 EXCELLENCE area last year, just minor changes ( as they themselves suggested) and got 3,00 in the same area this year...

[CountZ]

I'm all for this.
But what do you think the impact would be of addressing the MSCA people?

This sounds extremely unprofessional.

I know there is no appeal process but I at least would like to provide some feedback on unprofessional reviews back to the grant administrators. Please, let me know if you think we could put together a collective complaint of sorts (presumably, a more efficient way than individual feedback).

[Dajm]

Just to say, I scored 4,70 EXCELLENCE area last year, just minor changes ( as they themselves suggested) and got 3,00 in the same area this year...

If you are in social sciences that pretty much sums it up .

[MSCA_FAN]

CAR, 844xxx, it's in, 92.30. Thanks guy, for the company, the laughter and the shared madness. I think I'll miss you!

[Giu83]

Just to say, I scored 4,70 EXCELLENCE area last year, just minor changes ( as they themselves suggested) and got 3,00 in the same area this year...

If you are in social sciences that pretty much sums it up .

I'm LIF

[PLS]

Unfortunately I've just received the rejection letter
Congratulations to those who succeeded!

[Dajm]

Get the reviewers to do their job or hire better reviewers. Justify deducted points substantively. Reach consensus before combining individual scores, don't just pile individual comments together. Consider previous years evaluations in resubmission cases. Get your benchmarking straight. Have an open mind, think outside disciplinary boundaries. There is a process to evaluation which is clearly detailed in the reviewer guideline (and yes it mentions having an open mind), which some reviewers are not following.

I'm all for this.
But what do you think the impact would be of addressing the MSCA people?
Would they just ignore it? Would they seek to punish us for the next call?

This sounds extremely unprofessional.

I know there is no appeal process but I at least would like to provide some feedback on unprofessional reviews back to the grant administrators. Please, let me know if you think we could put together a collective complaint of sorts (presumably, a more efficient way than individual feedback).

Didn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.