-
ATBGF2017
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:31 pm
Post
by ATBGF2017 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:51 am
Another comment: The proposal does not provide sufficient detail on the amount of person months calculated in relation to the proposed work.
I did show these in a separate table month by month. I cannot believe the unprofessionalism. Does not the EC have some standard about who can be a reviewer?
Rapaz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:45 am
ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:41 am
Rjected.
This fucking thing is a huge hoax. Look at the comments below:
The proposal does not make sufficiently clear the number of article/papers to submit. (I did, I even gave the number of articles!)
• The proposal overlaps between communication and dissemination activities. The communication measures are not sufficiently detailed and
not adequately addressed in the Gantt chart (I did address them in the text. There is no need to do it in the Gantt Chart).
I did not see your proposal, but the communication and number of papers comments were made by total idiots or people that just wanted to screw your proposal because they didnt like it.
BTW, which panel (SOC, ENV, etc) and when did you go to Ranking?
Good luck, as you can see it´s a lottery
-
ATBGF2017
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:31 pm
Post
by ATBGF2017 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:52 am
Mine was GF-SOC and I was ranking since January 12.
-
Imbingo
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:46 am
Post
by Imbingo » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:52 am
ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:51 am
Another comment: The proposal does not provide sufficient detail on the amount of person months calculated in relation to the proposed work.
I did show these in a separate table month by month. I cannot believe the unprofessionalism. Does not the EC have some standard about who can be a reviewer?
Rapaz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:45 am
ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:41 am
Rjected.
This fucking thing is a huge hoax. Look at the comments below:
The proposal does not make sufficiently clear the number of article/papers to submit. (I did, I even gave the number of articles!)
• The proposal overlaps between communication and dissemination activities. The communication measures are not sufficiently detailed and
not adequately addressed in the Gantt chart (I did address them in the text. There is no need to do it in the Gantt Chart).
I did not see your proposal, but the communication and number of papers comments were made by total idiots or people that just wanted to screw your proposal because they didnt like it.
BTW, which panel (SOC, ENV, etc) and when did you go to Ranking?
Good luck, as you can see it´s a lottery
Omg.... I feel your pain
-
Rapaz
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:08 am
Post
by Rapaz » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:55 am
ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:52 am
Mine was GF-SOC and I was ranking since January 12.
I already noticed that with my last proposal (submitted two times) - if they dont like it, they will find any possibile way to screw it, under any excuse, like the idiot-ness with the number of papers.
This yeat I´ve started from zero- we´ll see
Good luck and good night
Last edited by
Rapaz on Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Amar
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:33 pm
Post
by Amar » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:56 am
ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:51 am
Another comment: The proposal does not provide sufficient detail on the amount of person months calculated in relation to the proposed work.
I did show these in a separate table month by month. I cannot believe the unprofessionalism. Does not the EC have some standard about who can be a reviewer?
Rapaz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:45 am
ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:41 am
Rjected.
This fucking thing is a huge hoax. Look at the comments below:
The proposal does not make sufficiently clear the number of article/papers to submit. (I did, I even gave the number of articles!)
• The proposal overlaps between communication and dissemination activities. The communication measures are not sufficiently detailed and
not adequately addressed in the Gantt chart (I did address them in the text. There is no need to do it in the Gantt Chart).
I did not see your proposal, but the communication and number of papers comments were made by total idiots or people that just wanted to screw your proposal because they didnt like it.
BTW, which panel (SOC, ENV, etc) and when did you go to Ranking?
Good luck, as you can see it´s a lottery
Wow, who are those people (reviewers)????
-
AlexMC2017
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:36 pm
Post
by AlexMC2017 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:01 am
Hey,
Anybody from those who already know their final results, could you tell us if besides the email you can see a notification on the participant portal?
So anxious!!
-
als
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:13 am
Post
by als » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:23 am
Hi all,
I was rejected (IF-Life Sciences) - I was in reserve last year (92%) and this year I got an 88.4%... unbelievable!
Good luck to the rest!!!
-
Rapaz
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:08 am
Post
by Rapaz » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:26 am
als wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:23 am
Hi all,
I was rejected (IF-Life Sciences) - I was in reserve last year (92%) and this year I got an 88.4%... unbelievable!
Good luck to the rest!!!
Again - a TOTAL LOTTERY. I´m sorry and really frustrated to read it! Don´t they notice that if you resubmit the proposal , it is probably IMPROVED? So if the score is lower, probably the evaluation system is bad...
When did you go to Ranking?
-
ouriell
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:07 pm
Post
by ouriell » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:53 am
got it!!!! 95.20% LIF
-
Rapaz
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:08 am
Post
by Rapaz » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:54 am
ouriell wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:53 am
got it!!!! 95.20% LIF
CONGRATS!!!!!! GF or EF?
When did you go to Ranking?
How did you first check it? By FO button, email or notifications?