2017 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2017)

[ST-LIF]

I also think everyone currently has : "isSGA":false,"canDeclineSignGA":true
these fields are probably updated after the results are out.

I entered the proposal ID of my last year proposal (which was rejected) and it shows the same "isSGA":false,"canDeclineSignGA":true message. I don't mean to stress you people but it seems that this message ("isSGA":false,"canDeclineSignGA":true) is an indication of the rejection. Off course, the official decision will be announced later on when all the results in the system will be upload.

I think we should be looking for meaningful differences between our data fields and those of the applicants rejected last year. Apparently, everybody has("isSGA":false,"canDeclineSignGA":true) in their data field right now, so we should be looking "not" for similarities but for differences! Here is an example of a data field of a rejected application last year:

programme":"H2020","canAddMessage":false,"canAccessProjectMessages":true,"canViewAmend":true,"canStartAmend":true,"canViewGAT":false,"canStartGAT":false,"canSendFN":true,"isFP7":false,"isCoordinator":true,"isNotFPA":true,"isCOSME":false,"isMSCAIF":true,"isSGA":false,"canDeclineSignGA":true,"canStartAmendBasedOnPrev":true,"canUseHdsDocumentDownload":true,"canUseDocumentAuditTrail":true}

And here is mine:

"programme":"H2020","canAddMessage":true,"canAccessProjectMessages":true,"canStartAmend":false,"canStartGAT":false,"canSendFN":false,"isFP7":false,"isCoordinator":false,"isFromCoordinator":false,"isNotFPA":true,"isCOSME":false,"isMSCAIF":true,"isMSCACofund":false,"isSGA":false,"canDeclineSignGA":true,"canStartAmendBasedOnPrev":false,"canUseDocumentAuditTrail":true}

Since I have "Phase: RANKING" on my field and there are apparent differences compared to the rejected application last year, I have reasonable cause to assume that my application is not (yet) rejected!

I don't know... Mine looks identical to yours but I that could just be the default settings before result/data is added to the system.

[pkem]

I strongly feel that EC should come forward and release official statement what this link reveals.

[rsr]

I strongly feel that EC should come forward and release official statement what this link reveals.

LOL... If EC hadn't found out about the "flaw" in these links last year, we would probably still be able to see the status field...

[elrid]

One can help me to understand this message

"canAddMessage":true,"canAccessProjectMessages":true,"canStartAmend":false,"canStartGAT":false,"canSendFN":false,"isFP7":false,"isCoordinator":true,"isFromCoordinator":true,"isNotFPA":true,"isCOSME":false,"isMSCAIF":true,"isMSCACofund":false,"isSGA":false,"canDeclineSignGA":true,"canStartAmendBasedOnPrev":false,"canUseDocumentAuditTrail":true

[RANKING]

Can you guys say what you get from this timeline? My understanding is that they send the proposals for ethics review after evaluation, so after proposals have been ranked....the red circle thats say Your Work is addressed to the ethics reviewer. They also write "The ethics appraisal procedure of
Horizon 2020 starts before the evaluation with the applicant self assessment and goes on until the project ends, and even after in case of ex post ethics audit. For the present exercise, the ethics experts are asked to participate in the process at the stage of the Ethics Review, by implementing Ethics Pre-Screenings and Screenings of proposals that are likely to be funded." * Proposals submitted in the scientific panels: Environment & Geosciences, Life Sciences and Social Sciences & Humanities will be subject to a full ethics screening, regardless of the applicants’ selfassessment.

I am curious because if this is true then these hack links are really misleading...

That’s a tough one.
In fact, I would say that Ethics Review runs parallel to Screening, Assessment and Grant Preparation. Therefore, Ethic sensitive applications might be requested to revise their statement at different stages of the Grant submission cycle.
So, perhaps the Pre-Screening it’s to spot which applications need extra info like a resubmission of the Ethics statements. After that during the Screening and Assessment proposals are considering in view of their score, ethics, mobility, etccccc.
But, why the dashed red arrows? I don’t know and don’t know if make sense to think that some proposals may actually receive an offer conditioned to some changes and therefore an extra time is given to assess the re-submited one (after the 14 of feb).

[danGFSOC]

Can you guys say what you get from this timeline? My understanding is that they send the proposals for ethics review after evaluation, so after proposals have been ranked....the red circle thats say Your Work is addressed to the ethics reviewer. They also write "The ethics appraisal procedure of
Horizon 2020 starts before the evaluation with the applicant self assessment and goes on until the project ends, and even after in case of ex post ethics audit. For the present exercise, the ethics experts are asked to participate in the process at the stage of the Ethics Review, by implementing Ethics Pre-Screenings and Screenings of proposals that are likely to be funded." * Proposals submitted in the scientific panels: Environment & Geosciences, Life Sciences and Social Sciences & Humanities will be subject to a full ethics screening, regardless of the applicants’ selfassessment.

I am curious because if this is true then these hack links are really misleading...

That’s a tough one.
In fact, I would say that Ethics Review runs parallel to Screening, Assessment and Grant Preparation. Therefore, Ethic sensitive applications might be requested to revise their statement at different stages of the Grant submission cycle.
So, perhaps the Pre-Screening it’s to spot which applications need extra info like a resubmission of the Ethics statements. After that during the Screening and Assessment proposals are considering in view of their score, ethics, mobility, etccccc.
But, why the dashed red arrows? I don’t know and don’t know if make sense to think that some proposals may actually receive an offer conditioned to some changes and therefore an extra time is given to assess the re-submited one (after the 14 of feb).

To "re-submit" after Febraury 14 is not possibile. From the guide for ethics evaluators you can download on the internet seems to me clear that:

- Some (few) are asked before the result announcements to clarify ethics issues if ethics is crucial and not clearly or enough elaborated in the proposal. For example if you are in the LIF panel, you deal with medical (human) data and you did not give enough info on ethics (and your score is in the "funded area" or very close), you will be asked to clarify specific issues before the result announcements (as someone in this forum did). Ethics pre-screening is for those panels and proposals where ethics is pivotal and not for all the panels.

- The majority of successful applications will deal with ethics issues during the negotiation phase, so after results announcements, when the new MSC fellows will work on the grant agreement in collaboration with the assigned officer and on the basis of what they wrote in the proposal. I know it well, because I did it with my group for another Marie Curie project (but not individual) that we won and ethic issues (which were quite important too) were elaborated and cleared in the negotiation phase.

[Amar]

Can you guys say what you get from this timeline? My understanding is that they send the proposals for ethics review after evaluation, so after proposals have been ranked....the red circle thats say Your Work is addressed to the ethics reviewer. They also write "The ethics appraisal procedure of
Horizon 2020 starts before the evaluation with the applicant self assessment and goes on until the project ends, and even after in case of ex post ethics audit. For the present exercise, the ethics experts are asked to participate in the process at the stage of the Ethics Review, by implementing Ethics Pre-Screenings and Screenings of proposals that are likely to be funded." * Proposals submitted in the scientific panels: Environment & Geosciences, Life Sciences and Social Sciences & Humanities will be subject to a full ethics screening, regardless of the applicants’ selfassessment.

I am curious because if this is true then these hack links are really misleading...

That’s a tough one.
In fact, I would say that Ethics Review runs parallel to Screening, Assessment and Grant Preparation. Therefore, Ethic sensitive applications might be requested to revise their statement at different stages of the Grant submission cycle.
So, perhaps the Pre-Screening it’s to spot which applications need extra info like a resubmission of the Ethics statements. After that during the Screening and Assessment proposals are considering in view of their score, ethics, mobility, etccccc.
But, why the dashed red arrows? I don’t know and don’t know if make sense to think that some proposals may actually receive an offer conditioned to some changes and therefore an extra time is given to assess the re-submited one (after the 14 of feb).

The guidance for evaluators states not no check if the proposal could be excellent/funded following corrections but to score it as is.

[ANGF]

The guidance for evaluators states not no check if the proposal could be excellent/funded following corrections but to score it as is.

Yes you're right, I think any submissions after Feb 14th would be things like copies of submissions to internal ethics boards, confirmation that the university/institution has ethically approved your research etc.

There is a maintenance notice up on the participant portal right now. Could be related to us, could be related to the ITN call that closed yesterday. It's for early tomorrow morning so perhaps the NCP who said results on Monday was right. Perhaps not! It's difficult not to project meaning onto these things.

[Amar]

The guidance for evaluators states not no check if the proposal could be excellent/funded following corrections but to score it as is.

Yes you're right, I think any submissions after Feb 14th would be things like copies of submissions to internal ethics boards, confirmation that the university/institution has ethically approved your research etc.

There is a maintenance notice up on the participant portal right now. Could be related to us, could be related to the ITN call that closed yesterday. It's for early tomorrow morning so perhaps the NCP who said results on Monday was right. Perhaps not! It's difficult not to project meaning onto these things.

Hi. I didn't see maintanance notice but if yes- bingo!

[RANKING]

The guidance for evaluators states not no check if the proposal could be excellent/funded following corrections but to score it as is.

Yes you're right, I think any submissions after Feb 14th would be things like copies of submissions to internal ethics boards, confirmation that the university/institution has ethically approved your research etc.

There is a maintenance notice up on the participant portal right now. Could be related to us, could be related to the ITN call that closed yesterday. It's for early tomorrow morning so perhaps the NCP who said results on Monday was right. Perhaps not! It's difficult not to project meaning onto these things.

Hi. I didn't see maintanance notice but if yes- bingo!

I couldn't see also the maintenance period. and yes by amends and resubmission (previous post) I meant in ethic issues, not in the main body of the proposal.