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

[Dajm]

Can I join that forum as well? I accept the decision but I want to help in transforming future MSCA reviews.

The more the merrier . If you can't access the forum please, send your email address to CountZ and he will add you to Google Doc we are working on.

[buk]

Can I join the forum please? I am not authorized, that is what the link says.

[Dajm]

People who want to co-author a complaint/op-ed about the review process, please, hold on as we figure out the access issue.

[SOC-2018]

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.

Speaking about contradictory comments, take a look at what I have received! :

Strength: It is appropriate and positive that the researcher intends to publish four articles in high ranked academic journals as part of the dissemination of the research results. It is also very promising that the researcher would participate in four international conferences.

weakness: The proposed measures for dissemination among peers in the form of journal articles are not sufficiently explicit: this is to do with the prospective topical areas and specificity, the prospective journals, and the number of planned outputs.

Strength: Suitably, there would be planning of two public engagement seminars which would facilitate the communication of the project to organizations interested in European Cultural policy through.
A set of generally appropriate tools and measures to communicate the project to a non-specialist audience is discussed sufficiently, and this includes social media tools, local press communications, and public workshops.

weakness: Except for the two planned public seminars, the measures for the dissemination of the project to the general public are insufficiently specified and remain too generic.

[AdinaBabesh]

This is incredible!

Who did the evaluations this year?

I have sent an email to REA and to the NCP, and I plan to go further with this. It is outrageous.

quote=SOC-2018 post_id=7593 time=1549996221 user_id=135]

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.

Speaking about contradictory comments, take a look at what I have received! :

Strength: It is appropriate and positive that the researcher intends to publish four articles in high ranked academic journals as part of the dissemination of the research results. It is also very promising that the researcher would participate in four international conferences.

weakness: The proposed measures for dissemination among peers in the form of journal articles are not sufficiently explicit: this is to do with the prospective topical areas and specificity, the prospective journals, and the number of planned outputs.

Strength: Suitably, there would be planning of two public engagement seminars which would facilitate the communication of the project to organizations interested in European Cultural policy through.
A set of generally appropriate tools and measures to communicate the project to a non-specialist audience is discussed sufficiently, and this includes social media tools, local press communications, and public workshops.

weakness: Except for the two planned public seminars, the measures for the dissemination of the project to the general public are insufficiently specified and remain too generic.
[/quote]

[CountZ]

I have added the following users to the group for co-authoring the article:
rkrkochi
hopefulacademic
buk

You should see a thread in the "Horizon 2020" forum here on the site (Dajm also linked to it earlier)

[Dajm]

This is hilarious/sad. Can we use this as an example in the letter to EC?

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.

Speaking about contradictory comments, take a look at what I have received! :

Strength: It is appropriate and positive that the researcher intends to publish four articles in high ranked academic journals as part of the dissemination of the research results. It is also very promising that the researcher would participate in four international conferences.

weakness: The proposed measures for dissemination among peers in the form of journal articles are not sufficiently explicit: this is to do with the prospective topical areas and specificity, the prospective journals, and the number of planned outputs.

Strength: Suitably, there would be planning of two public engagement seminars which would facilitate the communication of the project to organizations interested in European Cultural policy through.
A set of generally appropriate tools and measures to communicate the project to a non-specialist audience is discussed sufficiently, and this includes social media tools, local press communications, and public workshops.

weakness: Except for the two planned public seminars, the measures for the dissemination of the project to the general public are insufficiently specified and remain too generic.

[CountZ]

There is some difference between the statements though.
The second one is mediated by "Except for the two planned public seminars"... maybe they mean those are sufficient in themselves but not in terms of the general project.

This is hilarious/sad. Can we use this as an example in the letter to EC?

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.

Speaking about contradictory comments, take a look at what I have received! :

Strength: It is appropriate and positive that the researcher intends to publish four articles in high ranked academic journals as part of the dissemination of the research results. It is also very promising that the researcher would participate in four international conferences.

weakness: The proposed measures for dissemination among peers in the form of journal articles are not sufficiently explicit: this is to do with the prospective topical areas and specificity, the prospective journals, and the number of planned outputs.

Strength: Suitably, there would be planning of two public engagement seminars which would facilitate the communication of the project to organizations interested in European Cultural policy through.
A set of generally appropriate tools and measures to communicate the project to a non-specialist audience is discussed sufficiently, and this includes social media tools, local press communications, and public workshops.

weakness: Except for the two planned public seminars, the measures for the dissemination of the project to the general public are insufficiently specified and remain too generic.

[Thana2019]

Please add me too!

I have added the following users to the group for co-authoring the article:
rkrkochi
hopefulacademic
buk

You should see a thread in the "Horizon 2020" forum here on the site (Dajm also linked to it earlier)

[Thana2019]

Is it me or are the reserve lists especially long this year? 114 in SOC was mentioned here! Is that normal, and if not, does anyone know why this is?