2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Could someone post how to find your ranking on the reserve list? I can't seem to figure out how to find that information. Bonus if anyone has any stats on how many people get off it/at what rank we should give up hope? Thanks in advance!!
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:59 pm
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
hi,Anais wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:32 pmFor whoever was asking for this year's cutoff scores:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tende ... X9gWKTbtnE
thanks!
But this is last year's?
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:59 pm
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Someone told me to contact your Country Contact Point
-
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:24 pm
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
They are called National Contact Point, I specify this because by Country Contact Point you might not find them.
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:46 pm
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
The potential of the researcher to reach professional independence during the fellowship is not fully evident taking into account the moderate track record and personal achievements.
5 yr PhD and 2 yr post doc experience, 4 patents, 8 first author papers (2 JACS) and a total of 17 papers with a global average impact of 8. If this this qualified as moderate track record then were they planning to award the fellowship to Nobel laureates or what.
Pissed!!!!
5 yr PhD and 2 yr post doc experience, 4 patents, 8 first author papers (2 JACS) and a total of 17 papers with a global average impact of 8. If this this qualified as moderate track record then were they planning to award the fellowship to Nobel laureates or what.
Pissed!!!!
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
That's insane, man. I've seen a couple dozen of reports but never this "personal".FestivusShadow wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:33 pmThe potential of the researcher to reach professional independence during the fellowship is not fully evident taking into account the moderate track record and personal achievements.
5 yr PhD and 2 yr post doc experience, 4 patents, 8 first author papers (2 JACS) and a total of 17 papers with a global average impact of 8. If this this qualified as moderate track record then were they planning to award the fellowship to Nobel laureates or what.
Pissed!!!!
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:03 am
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Pretty insane.FestivusShadow wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:33 pmThe potential of the researcher to reach professional independence during the fellowship is not fully evident taking into account the moderate track record and personal achievements.
5 yr PhD and 2 yr post doc experience, 4 patents, 8 first author papers (2 JACS) and a total of 17 papers with a global average impact of 8. If this this qualified as moderate track record then were they planning to award the fellowship to Nobel laureates or what.
Pissed!!!!
I do have a follow up question. Did you highlight your publication record in Part B1? Iirc, reviewers are not obliged to see Part B2(where the CV is) while evaluating Part B1.
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
So they deemed it "moderate" without knowing anything about it?Shapovalov wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:58 pmPretty insane.FestivusShadow wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:33 pmThe potential of the researcher to reach professional independence during the fellowship is not fully evident taking into account the moderate track record and personal achievements.
5 yr PhD and 2 yr post doc experience, 4 patents, 8 first author papers (2 JACS) and a total of 17 papers with a global average impact of 8. If this this qualified as moderate track record then were they planning to award the fellowship to Nobel laureates or what.
Pissed!!!!
I do have a follow up question. Did you highlight your publication record in Part B1? Iirc, reviewers are not obliged to see Part B2(where the CV is) while evaluating Part B1.
-
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:24 pm
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
They do look into the CVs, in my case they said " The researcher has an impressive CV in view to their career stage.". I won't say they are wrong
Anais wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:00 pmSo they deemed it "moderate" without knowing anything about it?Shapovalov wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:58 pmPretty insane.FestivusShadow wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:33 pmThe potential of the researcher to reach professional independence during the fellowship is not fully evident taking into account the moderate track record and personal achievements.
5 yr PhD and 2 yr post doc experience, 4 patents, 8 first author papers (2 JACS) and a total of 17 papers with a global average impact of 8. If this this qualified as moderate track record then were they planning to award the fellowship to Nobel laureates or what.
Pissed!!!!
I do have a follow up question. Did you highlight your publication record in Part B1? Iirc, reviewers are not obliged to see Part B2(where the CV is) while evaluating Part B1.
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:03 am
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
I'm not commenting specifically on Festivus' case, because, of course, I do not know exactly what his/her situation is. Maybe (s)he just got a terrible reviewer(s).Anais wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:00 pmSo they deemed it "moderate" without knowing anything about it?Shapovalov wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:58 pmI do have a follow up question. Did you highlight your publication record in Part B1? Iirc, reviewers are not obliged to see Part B2(where the CV is) while evaluating Part B1.
That said, yes, I'm pretty sure that I read that the reviewers are not obliged to look through your CV while judging part B1.
If you are referring to something in your CV, especially with the reaching or reinforcing professional maturity subsection, you have to do it explicitly in that section. Each section (and subsection) is often judged independently. And one can not assume that the reviewers will read some part of the proposal to get information to judge another part. Whether you agree with this or not is not so relevant here, since they officially make it so to make the reviewers job easier. So that the reviewers don't need to keep cross referencing.
This is true in a variety of other things. Just having some information somewhere is not enough. It should be there exactly where the reviewers are told to expect it to be. I do recall putting a few things in multiple places, so that every subsection can be read in itself.
That's not to say that some reviewers aren't terrible. There definitely are bad reviewers, and luck plays a big role.