2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)

[Amar]

You won't be alone. We will join your birthday party

Yes, don't leave me alone

Birthday party on Talk Academia this weekend! We are here for you NoPanic42

Happy Birthday! Every blessing!!!
I actually know how you feel.
I have a birthday on Jan.28.
So every year i have some MSCA updates around this date.
On 28.01.2018 (2017 call) I realized i am going to be rejected staying in evaluation while everybody were receiving their results. I was rejected on Jan.29.
Last year on Jan.28 i passed to ranking still didn't get it.
This year i supposed to receive another fellowship results on this very day. Instead i was rejected on Jan.26.
Now i have "ranking" since yesterday.
Well, it was not exactly a great birthday last week.
I suffered quietly.

[Star@434]

I am also still in evaluation. This is my second attempt. First attempt, I got 80. And now nothing.

Probably we can forget fellowship this year

Honestly, I don't think that all these speculations about the meaning of 'evaluation' and 'ranking' are very convincing. The fact that some people switch from 'evaluation' to 'ranking' back to 'evaluation,' and that some other people got the grant without changing status profoundly undermines the reliability of the proposed theories. Besides, this idea that in order to see the actual state of our proposal we need to disactivate the browser style is so suspicious! Really guys? I am not an expert in these kinds of things, but it doesn't sound right, does it? And,in any case, do you really think that they would allow us to see what's going on? I do not want to disregard the theory proposed by those of you who have observed all this madness 'evaluation/ranking' in the previous years, but how much data have you analyzed out of more than 10.000 applications per year? It goes without saying that I am still on 'evaluation.'

Maybe you are right

[Little_Venice]

Can 'speculations' be 'convincing' in the first place? We only have anecdotal evidence and it is what it is. I, personally, never scored below 70 (3 times) and was in Ranking all three times. A close friend never scored above 70, and was in Eval all three times. Not statistically significant, but as anecdotal evidence it's pretty suggestive. That's all that's being discussed here. Strictly as a way of passing the time while waiting for the official results .

I am also still in evaluation. This is my second attempt. First attempt, I got 80. And now nothing.

Probably we can forget fellowship this year

Honestly, I don't think that all these speculations about the meaning of 'evaluation' and 'ranking' are very convincing. The fact that some people switch from 'evaluation' to 'ranking' back to 'evaluation,' and that some other people got the grant without changing status profoundly undermines the reliability of the proposed theories. Besides, this idea that in order to see the actual state of our proposal we need to disactivate the browser style is so suspicious! Really guys? I am not an expert in these kinds of things, but it doesn't sound right, does it? And,in any case, do you really think that they would allow us to see what's going on? I do not want to disregard the theory proposed by those of you who have observed all this madness 'evaluation/ranking' in the previous years, but how much data have you analyzed out of more than 10.000 applications per year? It goes without saying that I am still on 'evaluation.'

[lifmc2020]

Honestly, I don't think that all these speculations about the meaning of 'evaluation' and 'ranking' are very convincing. The fact that some people switch from 'evaluation' to 'ranking' back to 'evaluation,' and that some other people got the grant without changing status profoundly undermines the reliability of the proposed theories. Besides, this idea that in order to see the actual state of our proposal we need to disactivate the browser style is so suspicious! Really guys? I am not an expert in these kinds of things, but it doesn't sound right, does it? And,in any case, do you really think that they would allow us to see what's going on? I do not want to disregard the theory proposed by those of you who have observed all this madness 'evaluation/ranking' in the previous years, but how much data have you analyzed out of more than 10.000 applications per year? It goes without saying that I am still on 'evaluation.'

believe whatever helps you make it through the next few days, that's what's important. I disagree with you, but it does nothing for either of us for me to try and convince you. all the best to you and your research, I hope your project gets funded one way or another

[Surrreal]

I still don't get EC's policy to send rejection emails in the middle of the night (in fact, all decision emails). Like, they could just do it in the afternoon, ideally on a Friday, so that people have a couple of days to either party or mourn.

[Stat]

Hi guys,

With your permission, let me join your party:-)
I was lurking for about a month or more and decided - finally - to write something
I am in the CAR and still in Evaluation as Dreamer, and PetetheCAt, to name a few.
I have been reading the previous threads and also the current one, frankly speaking, there isn't that much that you can read from your status, especially if you are still under Evaluation. Plenty of those who were ranked previously ended up not receiving the grant.There is one applicant who got the grant, was under evaluation, and never went to the ranking status:
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Report this post
Post by MSCAA2019 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:24 pm
Main list. 97.4 MSCA-SE.
Thanks dreamer.
BTW, my status is still in "evaluation".
Good luck to everyone!


Also, of those who were under evaluation either they got the grant or they scored below 70.

The following is copied from the updated H2020 online manual:

FINAL EVALUATION RESULTS
Before notifying coordinators of the final evaluation results, the Commission reviews the results of the experts’ evaluation and puts together the final ranking list.

Proposals will not be offered funding if the Commission finds that it is already funding very similar work elsewhere, or a proposal is in any way manifestly contrary to established EU or Euratom policies.

Final rankings

The Commission:

produces a ranked list of proposals, including all proposals with scores above the qualifying score
draws up a list of proposals for possible funding from that list. The number of proposals in the list depends on the available budget.
Each page of topic conditions of a call on the Participant Portal gives approximate timelines when coordinators will receive information on the outcome of the evaluation.

Reserve list

If the available budget is too small to fund all proposals that reached the qualifying score in the evaluation round, some proposals may be put on a reserve list – of proposals that may be offered funding if a higher-scoring project does not go ahead or additional funds become available.

When a proposal is placed on the reserve list, the coordinator is informed. The Commission may also specify a date after which grant agreement is unlikely to be offered.

Rejection decisions

The Commission will notify proposal coordinators if their proposal has been rejected because:

it is found to be inadmissible or ineligible (before or during the evaluation)
it falls short of the relevant thresholds
it is too far down the ranked list to qualify for the limited amount of funding available
if it fails to obtain ethics clearance, following an ethics review (see Article 13.3 - Rules for participation and the ethics section
it raises security concerns.

[Little_Venice]

It takes hours to email the results to thousands of applicants. They pre-programme the system to start sending emails at midnight (probably assuming that normal people - definitely not this bunch - sleep at night and will check their email in the morning) to make sure that everybody gets a response by the end of that day (which, last year coincided with the deadline).

I still don't get EC's policy to send rejection emails in the middle of the night (in fact, all decision emails). Like, they could just do it in the afternoon, ideally on a Friday, so that people have a couple of days to either party or mourn.

[Little_Venice]

I am in.
No panic!!

You won't be alone. We will join your birthday party

Yes, don't leave me alone

Birthday party on Talk Academia this weekend! We are here for you NoPanic42

[PetetheCat]

We have a lot of us still in evaluation. Let's just get drunk this weekend, and who knows what next week will bring!!

[msca2019]

Hi guys,

With your permission, let me join your party:-)
I was lurking for about a month or more and decided - finally - to write something
I am in the CAR and still in Evaluation as Dreamer, and PetetheCAt, to name a few.
I have been reading the previous threads and also the current one, frankly speaking, there isn't that much that you can read from your status, especially if you are still under Evaluation. Plenty of those who were ranked previously ended up not receiving the grant.There is one applicant who got the grant, was under evaluation, and never went to the ranking status:
Re: 2019 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2019)
Report this post
Post by MSCAA2019 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:24 pm
Main list. 97.4 MSCA-SE.
Thanks dreamer.
BTW, my status is still in "evaluation".
Good luck to everyone!


Also, of those who were under evaluation either they got the grant or they scored below 70.

The following is copied from the updated H2020 online manual:

FINAL EVALUATION RESULTS
Before notifying coordinators of the final evaluation results, the Commission reviews the results of the experts’ evaluation and puts together the final ranking list.

Proposals will not be offered funding if the Commission finds that it is already funding very similar work elsewhere, or a proposal is in any way manifestly contrary to established EU or Euratom policies.

Final rankings

The Commission:

produces a ranked list of proposals, including all proposals with scores above the qualifying score
draws up a list of proposals for possible funding from that list. The number of proposals in the list depends on the available budget.
Each page of topic conditions of a call on the Participant Portal gives approximate timelines when coordinators will receive information on the outcome of the evaluation.

Reserve list

If the available budget is too small to fund all proposals that reached the qualifying score in the evaluation round, some proposals may be put on a reserve list – of proposals that may be offered funding if a higher-scoring project does not go ahead or additional funds become available.

When a proposal is placed on the reserve list, the coordinator is informed. The Commission may also specify a date after which grant agreement is unlikely to be offered.

Rejection decisions

The Commission will notify proposal coordinators if their proposal has been rejected because:

it is found to be inadmissible or ineligible (before or during the evaluation)
it falls short of the relevant thresholds
it is too far down the ranked list to qualify for the limited amount of funding available
if it fails to obtain ethics clearance, following an ethics review (see Article 13.3 - Rules for participation and the ethics section
it raises security concerns.

General rule: Evaluation < 70 Ranking > 70. System can have glitches that is why you have one or two people per year maybe without the ranking change in my opinion.
Ranking only means you got the cutoff. If there were available funding all above 70 would have been funded. Unfortunately there is not and the MSCA proposals are so competitive the funded cutoffs are insanely high.
HOWEVER you must remember EC does not only have MSCA it has other calls as well where successful results are closer to 80-85 in this case the Ranking status has more meaning than in the MSCA IF case

In any way. Patience is a virtue ... which we all seem to lack :p But we should try to stay cool and not trying to find secrets and conspiracy theories in everything