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

[DV_ENV]

I got rejected. It was my second time. First time my score was 88.4 and now it went down to 74.8. This time I submitted the same proposal with a different host. Based on the last years reviewers comments I improved a lot, spent two months fully to improve the write up and at least given for at least 10 people to review the proposal, rewrote many times. In the end I was very confident that I will come up good scores. But it was surprisingly shocked to see a very low score which is much worse than the rejection. I don't even feel that the previewers were read my application.

[mariecuriejoke]

third attempt, failed again. this is a total joke. got 87.8, 89.2, and 85.9 for the last three years. apparently i can write proposals pretty well, otherwise i wont get consistent okay grades three years in a row. each time, reviewers managed to find different excuses not to award me the fellowship.

im quite convinced now that they just simply dont like my area, they already made their decision once they read the intro and realised its not a very "trendy" or "sexy" topic. but in the meantime they knew its a well-written proposal which deserved an okay mark. so all they have to do is to find some lame excuses to bring the score below the cut-off.

[CHEM2017]

Hi, I wouldn´t recommend sharing ANY successful proposal; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE.

And it´s not because of egoism or being selfish - it´s just strictly confidential information in many cases and I bet that our Supervisors and Hosting Institutions have the same opinion.

There are many useful guides. Just google "how to write a successful MC proposal" or something like this.

Yes, that is fair enough. Confidentiality is key here, I guess.. I just wanted to hear from the experienced users here. This forum has a good potential!

Yes, this for sure. At some point I wouldn´t mind share some feelings , but in the next 2 weeks it will be complicated. Next deadline is in SEptember

Any idea how the paperwork should be done. My host told me it wouldn't concern us, and the university is going to do it, but I am still worried cause this did not come easy.

[quitealarmed]

Wow, where did you find this?
Oh my, according to this the cutoff in ST-LIF is 93, and I got 92.8

But you are on the reserve list, right?

Yes, but I don't have any hopes regarding that. I doubt more than a few will decline, and there are likely others with a score of 92.9 ....

Every score is going to end with an even number (each .1 on Excellence adds 1, .1 on Impact adds .6, and .1 on Implementation adds .4). So 92.8 *is* the highest score in ST-LIF below the cutoff. Assuming the scores are regularly distributed (which you can on ST-LIF given the number of applications), there are probably around 10 people on 92.8. I think you have a decent chance.

If two proposals have the same score, they are ranked lexicographically with Excellence taking precedence, followed by Impact and then Implementation. I don't know how the ranking happens if all three scores are the same.

[InfoCom]

Given the vague summary report, has anyone asked for the full reviews of their proposal so that they may actually improve their application? It seems they should have these somewhere and they might actually be more illuminating than the cut-and-paste responses we received.

Nope, these generic copy/paste comments is all we get...

Really disappointed with quality of comments..

[InfoCom]

Last year 72, same proposal this year, i got 97.6! reviewers comments from last year were extremely useful, dont understand why someone says the comments are nonsense.

Because all proposals are not reviewed by same reviewer. In my case there no comment on my scientific approach or validity of idea, rather just generalized comments such as "-International networking opportunities that the host could offer are not appropriately demonstrated, and The proposal does not convincingly demonstrate how the proposed action will contribute to their professional development as an independent/mature researcher."..My proposal contained 6 international travels plus other meetings and they say international networking opportunities are limited...And why there is no comment on my core idea, approach and methodology?

[Academics_Anonymous]

I previously posted a reply that I was rejected. I thought I was rejected completely but apparently I am in the reserve list.

Panel: ST-ENV, score: 91.6%

Anyone who got reserved in the same panel this year? I called up NCP today but she didn't disclose any valuable information.

Congrats everyone who got it!

PS: The reviews on the scientific part(i.e. excellence) are seemingly accurate but the reasoning at the implementation and dissemination parts is quite poor. In the end, ones who call this procedure as lottery are absolutely right. There is a lot of noise in the evaluation procedure.

[Failed_Proposal]

Cool, many thanks for that info!!

But you are on the reserve list, right?

Yes, but I don't have any hopes regarding that. I doubt more than a few will decline, and there are likely others with a score of 92.9 ....

Every score is going to end with an even number (each .1 on Excellence adds 1, .1 on Impact adds .6, and .1 on Implementation adds .4). So 92.8 *is* the highest score in ST-LIF below the cutoff. Assuming the scores are regularly distributed (which you can on ST-LIF given the number of applications), there are probably around 10 people on 92.8. I think you have a decent chance.

If two proposals have the same score, they are ranked lexicographically with Excellence taking precedence, followed by Impact and then Implementation. I don't know how the ranking happens if all three scores are the same.

[erkaner]

I previously posted a reply that I was rejected. I thought I was rejected completely but apparently I am in the reserve list.

Panel: ST-ENV, score: 91.6%

Anyone who got reserved in the same panel this year? I called up NCP today but she didn't disclose any valuable information.

Congrats everyone who got it!

PS: The reviews on the scientific part(i.e. excellence) are seemingly accurate but the reasoning at the implementation and dissemination parts is quite poor. In the end, ones who call this procedure as lottery are absolutely right. There is a lot of noise in the evaluation procedure.

You will have some chance if you are in top 5 (but this is still a guess, this depends on the number of people who withdraws their proposals). NCP is supposed to provide your ranking in the waiting list. Mine did previous year.

[CountZ]

I'm not sure how may of us got the grant, but would you find it helpful if I move questions about the grant agreement and the next steps for successful applicants to a new thread? Or just leave everything in here?