Talk Academia

I recommend we should raise our voice against the unjustified deduction in the points specifically for re-submissions where the candidate got significantly lower score compared to the earlier submission. I have seen in the forum people are claiming differences of 5-20 in the resubmitted proposal after addressing all the negative comments. How can it be justified? If we don't raise our voice, they will repeat the same injustice to deserved candidates.

So, Are they going to publish the reserve list anytime?

In my case, most of the weaknesses relate to the host rather than the research. Obviously I can improve my own input but it seems like reviewers did not see how the host would benefit me. So I am a bit thinking about whether I should go for a resubmission or look for a different host.

I concur with previous posters here that comments are contrasting and there is a huge luck factor involved. Congratulations to the others. I had a bottle of prosecco to celebrate, now I am going to drink my sorrow

I do not think it is available for the public, however at your national contact point they can tell you your ranking.

Dr Who wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:34 pm

So, Are they going to publish the reserve list anytime?

rkrkochi wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:31 pm

I recommend we should raise our voice against the unjustified deduction in the points specifically for re-submissions where the candidate got significantly lower score compared to the earlier submission. I have seen in the forum people are claiming differences of 5-20 in the resubmitted proposal after addressing all the negative comments. How can it be justified? If we don't raise our voice, they will repeat the same injustice to deserved candidates.

I strongly agree. A score difference of 10-20 for the same (albeit revised) research proposal is nothing else but a reviewer mistake that needs to be flagged and corrected. Please, check out the new Co-author discussion forum just created here and consider joining some of us in drafting a letter to the EC highlighting the flaws of the MC evaluation process.

Dajm wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:52 pm

rkrkochi wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:31 pm

I recommend we should raise our voice against the unjustified deduction in the points specifically for re-submissions where the candidate got significantly lower score compared to the earlier submission. I have seen in the forum people are claiming differences of 5-20 in the resubmitted proposal after addressing all the negative comments. How can it be justified? If we don't raise our voice, they will repeat the same injustice to deserved candidates.

I strongly agree. A score difference of 10-20 for the same (albeit revised) research proposal is nothing else but a reviewer mistake that needs to be flagged and corrected. Please, check out the new Co-author discussion forum just created here and consider joining some of us in drafting a letter to the EC highlighting the flaws of the MC evaluation process.

Caqn you please paste the link for the Co-author discussion forum. I could not find it

rkrkochi wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:20 pm

Dajm wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:52 pm

rkrkochi wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:31 pm

I recommend we should raise our voice against the unjustified deduction in the points specifically for re-submissions where the candidate got significantly lower score compared to the earlier submission. I have seen in the forum people are claiming differences of 5-20 in the resubmitted proposal after addressing all the negative comments. How can it be justified? If we don't raise our voice, they will repeat the same injustice to deserved candidates.

I strongly agree. A score difference of 10-20 for the same (albeit revised) research proposal is nothing else but a reviewer mistake that needs to be flagged and corrected. Please, check out the new Co-author discussion forum just created here and consider joining some of us in drafting a letter to the EC highlighting the flaws of the MC evaluation process.

Caqn you please paste the link for the Co-author discussion forum. I could not find it

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1068&p=7580#p7580

Dajm wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:28 pm

rkrkochi wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:20 pm

Dajm wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:52 pm

I strongly agree. A score difference of 10-20 for the same (albeit revised) research proposal is nothing else but a reviewer mistake that needs to be flagged and corrected. Please, check out the new Co-author discussion forum just created here and consider joining some of us in drafting a letter to the EC highlighting the flaws of the MC evaluation process.

Caqn you please paste the link for the Co-author discussion forum. I could not find it

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1068&p=7580#p7580

I am not authorised to read this forum..This is the message I got when I clicked

rkrkochi wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:29 pm

Dajm wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:28 pm

rkrkochi wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:20 pm

Caqn you please paste the link for the Co-author discussion forum. I could not find it

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1068&p=7580#p7580

I am not authorised to read this forum..This is the message I got when I clicked

Try this one and if not, can CountZ help?
viewforum.php?f=3

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