They are sleepy now.
2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
This is just a little part of "insufficient".......so much more.....expert_pastMC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:16 amThis is not helpful at all esp the first one. The second you could work on it next year i think but the first comment doesn't help you to address these weaknesses next year...xman25 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:11 amexamplesexpert_pastMC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:08 am
I guess this means they didn't like the project. Totally subjective... which shouldn't be. Do they give examples of why blah blah is not sufficient?
state of the art is not sufficiently detailed, and relevant aspects connected to the project have been insufficiently outlined.
two insufficient in one sentence.
planned public engagements /outreach activities of the researcher are not sufficiently detailed.
What I can expect from this?
Can I apply for re-evaluation? At least not with such a low score.
I really don't know what they want, as least page limit is not allowed me to do so.
-
MSCA2018ABC
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:07 am
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
Is there any winner in ST-ENG panel?
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
Dear guests, come in please & let us know what's happening 
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
Got the score 95 ..funded
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
the comments in my ESR are so contradictory! 
Strength: It is appropriate and positive that the researcher intends to publish four articles in high ranked academic journals as part of the dissemination of the research results. It is also very promising that the researcher would participate in four international conferences.
weakness: The proposed measures for dissemination among peers in the form of journal articles are not sufficiently explicit: this is to do with the prospective topical areas and specificity, the prospective journals, and the number of planned outputs.
Strength: Suitably, there would be planning of two public engagement seminars which would facilitate the communication of the project to organizations interested in European Cultural policy through.
A set of generally appropriate tools and measures to communicate the project to a non-specialist audience is discussed sufficiently, and this includes social media tools, local press communications, and public workshops.
weakness: Except for the two planned public seminars, the measures for the dissemination of the project to the general public are insufficiently specified and remain too generic.
Strength: It is appropriate and positive that the researcher intends to publish four articles in high ranked academic journals as part of the dissemination of the research results. It is also very promising that the researcher would participate in four international conferences.
weakness: The proposed measures for dissemination among peers in the form of journal articles are not sufficiently explicit: this is to do with the prospective topical areas and specificity, the prospective journals, and the number of planned outputs.
Strength: Suitably, there would be planning of two public engagement seminars which would facilitate the communication of the project to organizations interested in European Cultural policy through.
A set of generally appropriate tools and measures to communicate the project to a non-specialist audience is discussed sufficiently, and this includes social media tools, local press communications, and public workshops.
weakness: Except for the two planned public seminars, the measures for the dissemination of the project to the general public are insufficiently specified and remain too generic.