ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 amFor Global Fellowships, the cutoff should significantly decrease. The number of applications is slightly less (857 vs 900) but the budget increase is huge. It went up from 33 million to 45. So I am expecting the cutoff to be around 88-91.
For European fellowships, I am not sure. Budget went up from 205 to 220 but considering the number of applicants, the cutoff will probably go up as well.
Bren wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:07 amI notice that there are a lot more applicants this year than last year. I'm a bit surprised at this, I kind of expected there to be less what with Brexit looming, assumed less UK people would apply. Also, theres a hell of a lot more money in the fund this year than in previous years. I looked at the figures a few days ago and I its 270m this year vs 230m (I think) last year. I've no insight into why there is such a big jump in applications, or why there is more dough available, or how these things might impact on cut off scores. If I understood how such things worked I would be have a proper job, rather than being a qualitative social scientist.
This is my first year applying and I aint going to stress, if I don't get it then thats life, not the end of the world. Having said that, I'm pretty sure I will get it as my research idea is goddam amazing!!! Seriously though, best of luck to all and let the chips land where they may.
2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum
Hopefully it wont go up too far. Cut off last year for IF ES was 91, which was considerably lower than previous years (from memory: 2017 92.8, 2016 92.2, 2015 92.8)...heres hoping it stays somewhere around the 91/92 mark.
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:57 am
Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum
I totally agree with you. I would add that the proposal has to be perfect: if you can integrate what you just said about eu policies and agenda, a good and innovative outreach plan and a solid training component, should be easy to get it.
I know it might be stupid, but is essential to specify everything in depth, even that is you to carry on the work. The evaluators are like babies: you need to take their hand and guide them through your application.
I know it might be stupid, but is essential to specify everything in depth, even that is you to carry on the work. The evaluators are like babies: you need to take their hand and guide them through your application.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
danGFSOC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:58 amLast year in the Excellence part, I had just a point listed as weakness:
- The proposal analyses only partially the link between the most recent research work conducted by the researcher and the proposed project,
therefore the project’s novelty is not convincingly demonstrated; in particular, the new targeted elements are not adequately presented and it is
unclear how the researcher’s previous experience will be expended.
The comment was not very clear to me and in any case costed me the fellowship. The Impact and Implementation parts included comments that were very marginal (e.g.: the applicant did not specify the frequency for updating websites... "or the contingency plan relies on supervisors", just because I did not explicitly specify that it was me with the help of one of my supervisor that will address potential problems arising during the fellowship). But weaknesses, although marginal, were enough to fix my score few points under the cut-off. My impression is that sometimes the real reason one does not get it, in particular when you reach a high score, is not codified in comments. Simply, evaluators (or maybe chairs and vice chairs) found other projects more relevant than yours (because, although it is not never said, evaluations are always comparative in nature). But, having to justify it by following the MC rules and criteria, they codify the "rejection" in very weird ways.
After one learns to write a good proposal, luck is needed: i.e. a favorable mix of evaluators and projects that are evaluated with yours.
Maybe the only way to narrow the influence of luck on the evaluation is to build a very close link to EU policies and agenda: the project should be relevant, i.e. useful, for EU issues. I read abstracts and projects where the scientific side was just decent and topics were not very original or sometimes very very specific; however the link to EU policies and to a political/social/economic/cultural problem was so clear and evident, and sometimes very creatively put, that evaluators couldn't but award the project.
ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:05 pmFor me this was the most objective part actually. I also tried to address the evaluator comments as well. But, I do not want to raise my hopes as these things usually go to different evaluators who might raise different issues. That's why we need luck!
SOC-2018 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:35 pmSpeaking of sharing our previous experience of failing to win an MSCA fellowship, this is the evaluation of my last year application (I have left out sensitive information!) :
Score: 3.70 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 50.00%)
• Quality and credibility of the research/innovation action (level of novelty, appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary
and gender aspects)
• Quality and appropriateness of the training and of the two-way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host
• Quality of the supervision and of the integration in the team/institution
• Capacity of the researcher to reach or re-enforce a position of professional maturity/independence
Strengths:
- The research objectives are very clearly defined. The theoretical frame is properly described and solidly founded.
- The research project properly presents the two-way transfer of knowledge: the host can gain from the researcher: knowledge and skills
concerning teaching ............., conducting research on ............., cultural and area-specific knowledge; the researcher can gain from the host advanced research knowledge and skills, advanced organizational skills, communication (including writing)and presentation knowledge and skills.
- The qualifications and experience of the supervisor are good and appropriate and at a high level.
- The integration of the researcher within the host institution is good and appropriate (variuos measures taken to integrate the researcher in
different areas of expertise; appropriate international networking opportunities). The track record of the researcher is fully congruent with the
researcher's level of experience.
- The nature and quality of the host institution research environment fits excellently for the research proposed.
- The researcher's past personal experience and proposed research fit very well the proposed research and will support the researcher to reach a position of professional independence in the future.
- The host institution is of high excellence and expertise in the field of the research proposed.
- Gender aspects are appropriately addressed.
Weaknesses:
- The state-of-the-art is not developed comprehensively enough (the project description does not adequately consider the newest sources
published in recent years).
- The adopted methodology is rather eclectic and only partially credible.
- The proposed research does not contain sufficiently well presented interdisciplinary aspects.
- The proposed training initiatives at the host institution are not specific enough.
- Originality and innovative aspects of the research programme are not conclusively demonstrated, as the information on the extent to which
the proposed research action goes beyond the researcher’s PhD dissertation is insufficient.
I have done my best this year to resolve all the weaknesses identified by the evaluators and am impatiently looking forward to a positive decision (fingers crossed)
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:57 am
Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum
I have the feeling is going to increase for the ST-EF-LIF panel, hopefully not because last year was 93
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Bren wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:35 amHopefully it wont go up too far. Cut off last year for IF ES was 91, which was considerably lower than previous years (from memory: 2017 92.8, 2016 92.2, 2015 92.8)...heres hoping it stays somewhere around the 91/92 mark.
ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 amFor Global Fellowships, the cutoff should significantly decrease. The number of applications is slightly less (857 vs 900) but the budget increase is huge. It went up from 33 million to 45. So I am expecting the cutoff to be around 88-91.
For European fellowships, I am not sure. Budget went up from 205 to 220 but considering the number of applicants, the cutoff will probably go up as well.
Bren wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:07 amI notice that there are a lot more applicants this year than last year. I'm a bit surprised at this, I kind of expected there to be less what with Brexit looming, assumed less UK people would apply. Also, theres a hell of a lot more money in the fund this year than in previous years. I looked at the figures a few days ago and I its 270m this year vs 230m (I think) last year. I've no insight into why there is such a big jump in applications, or why there is more dough available, or how these things might impact on cut off scores. If I understood how such things worked I would be have a proper job, rather than being a qualitative social scientist.
This is my first year applying and I aint going to stress, if I don't get it then thats life, not the end of the world. Having said that, I'm pretty sure I will get it as my research idea is goddam amazing!!! Seriously though, best of luck to all and let the chips land where they may.
Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum
There is, however, another (unfortunate) aspect to the evaluators thinking, especially in social sciences and the broader humanities, and that is political ideology. I don't want to say too much, suffice to say I've spoken with people about this issue, and considerable bias on the part of evaluators can make the difference between a proposal being funded or not being funded. If your proposal, in any way, reflects 'conservative' political or social thought then the likelihood of receiving funding is low regardless of how excellent your proposal is. In addition, even within left leaning or 'progressive' social thought, there are so many fractured and competing strands of thinking that problems can arise when one receives an evaluator who disagrees with your theoretical stance. This is an unfortunate aspect of the politicization of our times.
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:38 amI totally agree with you. I would add that the proposal has to be perfect: if you can integrate what you just said about eu policies and agenda, a good and innovative outreach plan and a solid training component, should be easy to get it.
I know it might be stupid, but is essential to specify everything in depth, even that is you to carry on the work. The evaluators are like babies: you need to take their hand and guide them through your application.![]()
danGFSOC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:58 amLast year in the Excellence part, I had just a point listed as weakness:
- The proposal analyses only partially the link between the most recent research work conducted by the researcher and the proposed project,
therefore the project’s novelty is not convincingly demonstrated; in particular, the new targeted elements are not adequately presented and it is
unclear how the researcher’s previous experience will be expended.
The comment was not very clear to me and in any case costed me the fellowship. The Impact and Implementation parts included comments that were very marginal (e.g.: the applicant did not specify the frequency for updating websites... "or the contingency plan relies on supervisors", just because I did not explicitly specify that it was me with the help of one of my supervisor that will address potential problems arising during the fellowship). But weaknesses, although marginal, were enough to fix my score few points under the cut-off. My impression is that sometimes the real reason one does not get it, in particular when you reach a high score, is not codified in comments. Simply, evaluators (or maybe chairs and vice chairs) found other projects more relevant than yours (because, although it is not never said, evaluations are always comparative in nature). But, having to justify it by following the MC rules and criteria, they codify the "rejection" in very weird ways.
After one learns to write a good proposal, luck is needed: i.e. a favorable mix of evaluators and projects that are evaluated with yours.
Maybe the only way to narrow the influence of luck on the evaluation is to build a very close link to EU policies and agenda: the project should be relevant, i.e. useful, for EU issues. I read abstracts and projects where the scientific side was just decent and topics were not very original or sometimes very very specific; however the link to EU policies and to a political/social/economic/cultural problem was so clear and evident, and sometimes very creatively put, that evaluators couldn't but award the project.
Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure last year was 91. Oh, I don't know what LIF stands for, maybe that's different to ST EF without the LIF...
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 amI have the feeling is going to increase for the ST-EF-LIF panel, hopefully not because last year was 93![]()
Bren wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:35 amHopefully it wont go up too far. Cut off last year for IF ES was 91, which was considerably lower than previous years (from memory: 2017 92.8, 2016 92.2, 2015 92.8)...heres hoping it stays somewhere around the 91/92 mark.
ATBGF2017 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 amFor Global Fellowships, the cutoff should significantly decrease. The number of applications is slightly less (857 vs 900) but the budget increase is huge. It went up from 33 million to 45. So I am expecting the cutoff to be around 88-91.
For European fellowships, I am not sure. Budget went up from 205 to 220 but considering the number of applicants, the cutoff will probably go up as well.
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:57 am
Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum
This is the standard european life sciences panel, so you are safe
.
What you have raised is an interesting point i did not think about it, as i am not from your field and do not know anything about social science. Can you raise this point to the EU? Can you maybe propose a project that consider this issue and bias in your panel? I mean science should be free from personal beliefs! But i guess is the same in our field as other scientists might not like your theory or way to see stuff.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
What you have raised is an interesting point i did not think about it, as i am not from your field and do not know anything about social science. Can you raise this point to the EU? Can you maybe propose a project that consider this issue and bias in your panel? I mean science should be free from personal beliefs! But i guess is the same in our field as other scientists might not like your theory or way to see stuff.
Bren wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:51 amAre you sure? I'm pretty sure last year was 91. Oh, I don't know what LIF stands for, maybe that's different to ST EF without the LIF...![]()
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 amI have the feeling is going to increase for the ST-EF-LIF panel, hopefully not because last year was 93![]()
Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum
I decided to apply for this funding 4 days before the deadline, and, in fact, knew little about MCSA before that. I've only been in academic for few years, after working in the non academic sector for 15 years.
When I looked into this fellowship 3 things struck me: 1) That applications are not anonymous. I think it would be awkward to anonymise applications but I think it could be done, and should be done. There are 'big names', superstar academics in all of our disciplines, and proposals linked of those names will, I believe, be look upon favorably by evaluators. This is a problem.
2) The second thing that struck me (once I had spoken to colleagues), and this has been raised by others on this forum, is that evaluators can hardly be called 'experts' as a lot of them are junior academics and postdocs. So, as a former drug addict who has spent 15 years working with drug addicts after I cleaned ups, and has 3 degrees, a phd, and a rake of publications, my proposal on the psychology of addiction recovery will be evaluated by a young postdoc who is understandably trying to supplement his or her income. Senior academics don't work as experts cos they dont need the dough.
3) Issues, especially social and political issues, go through trends of 'popularity' (popularity isn't the right word, but hey you get my meaning). Proposals relating to immigration, refugees, racism, radicalization etc will be far more likely to get funding than proposals relating to equally important and pressing problems such as addiction, organised crime, sex crime etc (I'm a criminologist, hence the focus on crime). I'm sure this trend of 'in vogue' issues is present in other fields too.
My point here is that, similar to the point with the political ideology, one could make an argument that there is a lot of arbitrariness in the scoring of these proposals, a lot will depend on the luck of the draw and the integrity and intelligence of evaluators. Therefore, man we really shouldn't take it too personally if we don't get selected, so much is about luck, luck, luck. I aint gonna stress, and I aint gonna take it personally if I dont get it. Theres a lot of dice rolling involved here.
When I looked into this fellowship 3 things struck me: 1) That applications are not anonymous. I think it would be awkward to anonymise applications but I think it could be done, and should be done. There are 'big names', superstar academics in all of our disciplines, and proposals linked of those names will, I believe, be look upon favorably by evaluators. This is a problem.
2) The second thing that struck me (once I had spoken to colleagues), and this has been raised by others on this forum, is that evaluators can hardly be called 'experts' as a lot of them are junior academics and postdocs. So, as a former drug addict who has spent 15 years working with drug addicts after I cleaned ups, and has 3 degrees, a phd, and a rake of publications, my proposal on the psychology of addiction recovery will be evaluated by a young postdoc who is understandably trying to supplement his or her income. Senior academics don't work as experts cos they dont need the dough.
3) Issues, especially social and political issues, go through trends of 'popularity' (popularity isn't the right word, but hey you get my meaning). Proposals relating to immigration, refugees, racism, radicalization etc will be far more likely to get funding than proposals relating to equally important and pressing problems such as addiction, organised crime, sex crime etc (I'm a criminologist, hence the focus on crime). I'm sure this trend of 'in vogue' issues is present in other fields too.
My point here is that, similar to the point with the political ideology, one could make an argument that there is a lot of arbitrariness in the scoring of these proposals, a lot will depend on the luck of the draw and the integrity and intelligence of evaluators. Therefore, man we really shouldn't take it too personally if we don't get selected, so much is about luck, luck, luck. I aint gonna stress, and I aint gonna take it personally if I dont get it. Theres a lot of dice rolling involved here.
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:11 pmThis is the standard european life sciences panel, so you are safe.
What you have raised is an interesting point i did not think about it, as i am not from your field and do not know anything about social science. Can you raise this point to the EU? Can you maybe propose a project that consider this issue and bias in your panel? I mean science should be free from personal beliefs! But i guess is the same in our field as other scientists might not like your theory or way to see stuff.
Bren wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:51 amAre you sure? I'm pretty sure last year was 91. Oh, I don't know what LIF stands for, maybe that's different to ST EF without the LIF...![]()
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 amI have the feeling is going to increase for the ST-EF-LIF panel, hopefully not because last year was 93![]()
Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum
This.
Bren wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:36 pmI decided to apply for this funding 4 days before the deadline, and, in fact, knew little about MCSA before that. I've only been in academic for few years, after working in the non academic sector for 15 years.
When I looked into this fellowship 3 things struck me: 1) That applications are not anonymous. I think it would be awkward to anonymise applications but I think it could be done, and should be done. There are 'big names', superstar academics in all of our disciplines, and proposals linked of those names will, I believe, be look upon favorably by evaluators. This is a problem.
2) The second thing that struck me (once I had spoken to colleagues), and this has been raised by others on this forum, is that evaluators can hardly be called 'experts' as a lot of them are junior academics and postdocs. So, as a former drug addict who has spent 15 years working with drug addicts after I cleaned ups, and has 3 degrees, a phd, and a rake of publications, my proposal on the psychology of addiction recovery will be evaluated by a young postdoc who is understandably trying to supplement his or her income. Senior academics don't work as experts cos they dont need the dough.
3) Issues, especially social and political issues, go through trends of 'popularity' (popularity isn't the right word, but hey you get my meaning). Proposals relating to immigration, refugees, racism, radicalization etc will be far more likely to get funding than proposals relating to equally important and pressing problems such as addiction, organised crime, sex crime etc (I'm a criminologist, hence the focus on crime). I'm sure this trend of 'in vogue' issues is present in other fields too.
My point here is that, similar to the point with the political ideology, one could make an argument that there is a lot of arbitrariness in the scoring of these proposals, a lot will depend on the luck of the draw and the integrity and intelligence of evaluators. Therefore, man we really shouldn't take it too personally if we don't get selected, so much is about luck, luck, luck. I aint gonna stress, and I aint gonna take it personally if I dont get it. Theres a lot of dice rolling involved here.
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:11 pmThis is the standard european life sciences panel, so you are safe.
What you have raised is an interesting point i did not think about it, as i am not from your field and do not know anything about social science. Can you raise this point to the EU? Can you maybe propose a project that consider this issue and bias in your panel? I mean science should be free from personal beliefs! But i guess is the same in our field as other scientists might not like your theory or way to see stuff.
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:57 am
Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum
Thanks for raising this.
Regarding your first point: that is a major problem in academia, it has been like this forever and is something that journal are trying to address by making the authors of a paper in review anonymous. In academia there is a lot of competition and if you don't like someone or you are working in the same field and get the chance to review one of this person's paper, well it is easy to imagine what will happen. Again we are trying to advance human knowledge, so personal beliefs, ideology and what you like/dislike should stay at home. In biomedicine and in each specific topic, we all know the big names or what your competitors are doing so even if your name isn't there, it is quite easy to guess and penalize a paper/application if you are an asshole!
2) Usually, you apply for a MSCA after your PhD or few years postdoc so most of the times, someone which has few years of experience more than you, will evaluate your proposal (i guess). I have some colleagues working as experts (senior postdocs and young PIs) and have considerably more experience than me (i have been working in my field for 6 years and have one postdoc experience), and I deeply believe in their integrity and objectivity when evaluating proposals. Of course, I cannot speak for all the thousand experts for the IF
. If i am not wrong if you are awarded a MSCA-IF they invite you to evaluate next year proposals. I have heard this from someone and i could be completely wrong. In this case it would be a young postdoc with very few experience in project evaluation, hence the case you are considering. As you said, I don't think that a senior PI or a professor will sign as an expert, unless is invited.
3) The trend and how "hot" is your topic is something major in the life sciences and biomedicine as well, but is based purely on the science you are doing and what everyone else is doing, so i would say this is normal in the LIF.
In my case, I never took it personally, this is how things works in academia, and i have faced rejection multiple times before and i will face it many times in the future. As i said before, resilience is essential in academia and in my opinion is what differentiate a successful scientist from the rest!
Regarding your first point: that is a major problem in academia, it has been like this forever and is something that journal are trying to address by making the authors of a paper in review anonymous. In academia there is a lot of competition and if you don't like someone or you are working in the same field and get the chance to review one of this person's paper, well it is easy to imagine what will happen. Again we are trying to advance human knowledge, so personal beliefs, ideology and what you like/dislike should stay at home. In biomedicine and in each specific topic, we all know the big names or what your competitors are doing so even if your name isn't there, it is quite easy to guess and penalize a paper/application if you are an asshole!
2) Usually, you apply for a MSCA after your PhD or few years postdoc so most of the times, someone which has few years of experience more than you, will evaluate your proposal (i guess). I have some colleagues working as experts (senior postdocs and young PIs) and have considerably more experience than me (i have been working in my field for 6 years and have one postdoc experience), and I deeply believe in their integrity and objectivity when evaluating proposals. Of course, I cannot speak for all the thousand experts for the IF
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
3) The trend and how "hot" is your topic is something major in the life sciences and biomedicine as well, but is based purely on the science you are doing and what everyone else is doing, so i would say this is normal in the LIF.
In my case, I never took it personally, this is how things works in academia, and i have faced rejection multiple times before and i will face it many times in the future. As i said before, resilience is essential in academia and in my opinion is what differentiate a successful scientist from the rest!
Bren wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:36 pmI decided to apply for this funding 4 days before the deadline, and, in fact, knew little about MCSA before that. I've only been in academic for few years, after working in the non academic sector for 15 years.
When I looked into this fellowship 3 things struck me: 1) That applications are not anonymous. I think it would be awkward to anonymise applications but I think it could be done, and should be done. There are 'big names', superstar academics in all of our disciplines, and proposals linked of those names will, I believe, be look upon favorably by evaluators. This is a problem.
2) The second thing that struck me (once I had spoken to colleagues), and this has been raised by others on this forum, is that evaluators can hardly be called 'experts' as a lot of them are junior academics and postdocs. So, as a former drug addict who has spent 15 years working with drug addicts after I cleaned ups, and has 3 degrees, a phd, and a rake of publications, my proposal on the psychology of addiction recovery will be evaluated by a young postdoc who is understandably trying to supplement his or her income. Senior academics don't work as experts cos they dont need the dough.
3) Issues, especially social and political issues, go through trends of 'popularity' (popularity isn't the right word, but hey you get my meaning). Proposals relating to immigration, refugees, racism, radicalization etc will be far more likely to get funding than proposals relating to equally important and pressing problems such as addiction, organised crime, sex crime etc (I'm a criminologist, hence the focus on crime). I'm sure this trend of 'in vogue' issues is present in other fields too.
My point here is that, similar to the point with the political ideology, one could make an argument that there is a lot of arbitrariness in the scoring of these proposals, a lot will depend on the luck of the draw and the integrity and intelligence of evaluators. Therefore, man we really shouldn't take it too personally if we don't get selected, so much is about luck, luck, luck. I aint gonna stress, and I aint gonna take it personally if I dont get it. Theres a lot of dice rolling involved here.
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:11 pmThis is the standard european life sciences panel, so you are safe.
What you have raised is an interesting point i did not think about it, as i am not from your field and do not know anything about social science. Can you raise this point to the EU? Can you maybe propose a project that consider this issue and bias in your panel? I mean science should be free from personal beliefs! But i guess is the same in our field as other scientists might not like your theory or way to see stuff.
Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum
Excellent response, thank you!
Just on point 2: I am guilty of some 'blanket thinking' on this point, I admit. I had the experience a few months ago of being told that two people I know are expert evaluators for MCSA (not in my discipline) and my response was something like "You are shitting me, those idiots can just about tie their shoe laces". I'm sure there are some excellent people involved.
Just on point 2: I am guilty of some 'blanket thinking' on this point, I admit. I had the experience a few months ago of being told that two people I know are expert evaluators for MCSA (not in my discipline) and my response was something like "You are shitting me, those idiots can just about tie their shoe laces". I'm sure there are some excellent people involved.
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:01 pmThanks for raising this.
Regarding your first point: that is a major problem in academia, it has been like this forever and is something that journal are trying to address by making the authors of a paper in review anonymous. In academia there is a lot of competition and if you don't like someone or you are working in the same field and get the chance to review one of this person's paper, well it is easy to imagine what will happen. Again we are trying to advance human knowledge, so personal beliefs, ideology and what you like/dislike should stay at home. In biomedicine and in each specific topic, we all know the big names or what your competitors are doing so even if your name isn't there, it is quite easy to guess and penalize a paper/application if you are an asshole!
2) Usually, you apply for a MSCA after your PhD or few years postdoc so most of the times, someone which has few years of experience more than you, will evaluate your proposal (i guess). I have some colleagues working as experts (senior postdocs and young PIs) and have considerably more experience than me (i have been working in my field for 6 years and have one postdoc experience), and I deeply believe in their integrity and objectivity when evaluating proposals. Of course, I cannot speak for all the thousand experts for the IF. If i am not wrong if you are awarded a MSCA-IF they invite you to evaluate next year proposals. I have heard this from someone and i could be completely wrong. In this case it would be a young postdoc with very few experience in project evaluation, hence the case you are considering. As you said, I don't think that a senior PI or a professor will sign as an expert, unless is invited.
3) The trend and how "hot" is your topic is something major in the life sciences and biomedicine as well, but is based purely on the science you are doing and what everyone else is doing, so i would say this is normal in the LIF.
In my case, I never took it personally, this is how things works in academia, and i have faced rejection multiple times before and i will face it many times in the future. As i said before, resilience is essential in academia and in my opinion is what differentiate a successful scientist from the rest!
Bren wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:36 pmI decided to apply for this funding 4 days before the deadline, and, in fact, knew little about MCSA before that. I've only been in academic for few years, after working in the non academic sector for 15 years.
When I looked into this fellowship 3 things struck me: 1) That applications are not anonymous. I think it would be awkward to anonymise applications but I think it could be done, and should be done. There are 'big names', superstar academics in all of our disciplines, and proposals linked of those names will, I believe, be look upon favorably by evaluators. This is a problem.
2) The second thing that struck me (once I had spoken to colleagues), and this has been raised by others on this forum, is that evaluators can hardly be called 'experts' as a lot of them are junior academics and postdocs. So, as a former drug addict who has spent 15 years working with drug addicts after I cleaned ups, and has 3 degrees, a phd, and a rake of publications, my proposal on the psychology of addiction recovery will be evaluated by a young postdoc who is understandably trying to supplement his or her income. Senior academics don't work as experts cos they dont need the dough.
3) Issues, especially social and political issues, go through trends of 'popularity' (popularity isn't the right word, but hey you get my meaning). Proposals relating to immigration, refugees, racism, radicalization etc will be far more likely to get funding than proposals relating to equally important and pressing problems such as addiction, organised crime, sex crime etc (I'm a criminologist, hence the focus on crime). I'm sure this trend of 'in vogue' issues is present in other fields too.
My point here is that, similar to the point with the political ideology, one could make an argument that there is a lot of arbitrariness in the scoring of these proposals, a lot will depend on the luck of the draw and the integrity and intelligence of evaluators. Therefore, man we really shouldn't take it too personally if we don't get selected, so much is about luck, luck, luck. I aint gonna stress, and I aint gonna take it personally if I dont get it. Theres a lot of dice rolling involved here.
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:11 pmThis is the standard european life sciences panel, so you are safe.
What you have raised is an interesting point i did not think about it, as i am not from your field and do not know anything about social science. Can you raise this point to the EU? Can you maybe propose a project that consider this issue and bias in your panel? I mean science should be free from personal beliefs! But i guess is the same in our field as other scientists might not like your theory or way to see stuff.