2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

if2018
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:51 am

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by if2018 » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:20 pm

lolome wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Anyone with twitter has known something else? I have not a twitter account and find very difficult to find information there. I would not be surprise of people are complaining because of the leakage of information from some NCP.
There are few related posts in Twitter... and no updates in recent two days.
The screen shot for your consideration.
Attachments
20190210212847.png
20190210212847.png (55.02 KiB) Viewed 10010 times

fr489
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by fr489 » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:29 pm

I personally think they will start sending emails tomorrow midnight. That way, all the emails would be received the 12 February and since the whole process would take about 20h, all participants would receive their notification before the end of the official deadline. Wouldn’t that be possible?

Flocci
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:49 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by Flocci » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:35 pm

I somehow tend to believe they will start sending emails tonight after midnight. This is what I read between the lines.

sound
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:07 am

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by sound » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:36 pm

I hope so too we are all in the dark while some people are already planning the next steps in another thread :P
Flocci wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:35 pm
I somehow tend to believe they will start sending emails tonight after midnight. This is what I read between the lines.

MC_F
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by MC_F » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:48 pm

By the way, this is the first time I apply for a fellowship and I thought it was going to be less stressful. I did not even know that it was going to be possible to resubmit the same project (revised, of course) to the next call. Good to know but in that case, I will just apply almost for fun (meaning 0 expectations :D) given that it is super competitive. Maybe to use the same project to apply for a different fellowship would not be a bad idea..

Dajm
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:55 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by Dajm » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:21 pm

To put an end to the gender aspects discussion:

The manual for evaluators clearly states that they "must only assess the gender dimension if it is relevant to the proposed research."

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... uators.pdf
Last edited by Dajm on Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

megasphaera
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:55 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by megasphaera » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:24 pm

My boss used to say that for 10 grants you apply at a young level they give you 1.
The project i have submitted to MSCA call was already sent to 3 different calls and is currently under evaluation for MSCA and another funding agency.
I think is an innovative, game chancing project, especially in my field. Until now I received positive reviews, but everyone told me that is too ambitious for someone at my level (i thought of the project, collaborators and technical approach). If i don't get the funding I possibly have another position but to work on a different type of cancer. I will might have the chance to convince my new boss to explore my ideas, but I don't know.
So, it is super stressful, there are lots of things at stake and most of the time they don't give you a chance to improve the project.

It is exactly what you said: if you think the project is good, use it for all the fellowship you can apply to; that will increase your chances!
MC_F wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:48 pm
By the way, this is the first time I apply for a fellowship and I thought it was going to be less stressful. I did not even know that it was going to be possible to resubmit the same project (revised, of course) to the next call. Good to know but in that case, I will just apply almost for fun (meaning 0 expectations :D) given that it is super competitive. Maybe to use the same project to apply for a different fellowship would not be a bad idea..

michelef
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:33 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by michelef » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:27 pm

Well, that's because with human subjects gender differences MAY exist, so you need a gender dimension paragraph in any case, even just to say that gender is irrelevant.

It's mandatory in the sense that if a gender difference may exist, you cannot skip the paragraph... but maybe it's just my interpretation
Dajm wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:46 am
Hy michelef,

I am just curious where you got 'mandatory' from the below:

'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content (IF RELEVANT). In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences MAY exist. IN THESE CASES the gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

'Mandatory' would read: 'Discuss the gender dimension in the research content. In research activities where human beings are involved as subjects or end-users, gender differences exist. The gender dimension in the research content has to be addressed as an integral part of the proposal to ensure the highest level of scientific quality.'

My current understanding is that the unspoken convention within the EC framework is that gender must be included or at least explicitly considered and addressed. The template wording above unequivocally indicates that a description of gender aspects in not a mandatory part of the proposal. What remains a grey area is whether the reviewer may decide that consideration of gender would have been mandatory/appropriate/desirable for this particular research and deduct points accordingly.


michelef wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:32 am
The proposal template is very clear that the gender paragraph is mandatory for research involving human subjects... If not, hopefully it may be ok anyway not including the gender dimension
if2018 wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:16 am


IF-ENV, No human subjects. I don't think my proposal involves any gender issues.
Thanks, michelef.

if2018
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:51 am

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by if2018 » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:29 pm

Dajm wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:21 pm
To put an end to the gender aspects discussion:

The manual for evaluators clearly states that they "must only assess the gender dimension if it is relevant to the proposed research."

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... uators.pdf
Yes, but how to define the term 'relevant' relied heavily on these evaluators as well.

Dajm
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:55 pm

Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

Post by Dajm » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:43 pm

In my opinion, there is only one way to interpret it, and that is, 'relevant' from the perspective of the researcher. How can the evaluator ASSESS
something that's not in the proposal (=considered irrelevant by the researcher)? The evaluator may hypothetically be invited to consider the potential gender dimension of a particular research and provide an opinion as to whether it's relevant or not but that's clearly not what is asked of them in the manual - they must assess what's already in the proposal. The manual is very clear about instructing the evaluators to assess what's provided and NOT provide recommendations for improvement. Anyhow, I am beginning to bore my own self with this :) but this ambiguity in the guidelines really needs to be fixed.
if2018 wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:29 pm
Dajm wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:21 pm
To put an end to the gender aspects discussion:

The manual for evaluators clearly states that they "must only assess the gender dimension if it is relevant to the proposed research."

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... uators.pdf
Yes, but how to define the term 'relevant' relied heavily on these evaluators as well.

Locked