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

[Fumansheh]

I'm so sorry to hear that! I have also scored 4 in the impact section without any weakness mentioned. Just crazy

Didn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.

[kassiek]

I'm so sorry to hear that! I have also scored 4 in the impact section without any weakness mentioned. Just crazy

Didn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.

I got high 3s in the bottom sections and the comments weren’t severe or helpful (just general statements with little meaning). I think they need some better benchmarking.

[Azaekiel]

Got 89.6% in the CAR panel. Now on waiting list as number 17. Any hopes or guidance?

[IF ST LIF]

Get the reviewers to do their job or hire better reviewers. Justify deducted points substantively. Reach consensus before combining individual scores, don't just pile individual comments together. Consider previous years evaluations in resubmission cases. Have an open mind, think outside disciplinary boundaries. There is a process to evaluation which is clearly detailed in the reviewer guideline (and yes it mentions having an open mind), which some reviewers are not following.

I'm all for this.
But what do you think the impact would be of addressing the MSCA people?
Would they just ignore it? Would they seek to punish us for the next call?

This sounds extremely unprofessional.

I know there is no appeal process but I at least would like to provide some feedback on unprofessional reviews back to the grant administrators. Please, let me know if you think we could put together a collective complaint of sorts (presumably, a more efficient way than individual feedback).

Agree. Big drops in resubmission scores should raise a flag in the process. They should also evaluate whether the applicant has addressed the weaknesses. Some quality assurance should also notice that strengths of the first application cannot be weaknesses the next year. Makes no sense.

[Fumansheh]

The evaluation is really ridiculous!!!
In the excellence section I got 3.30 with several strength points and only two weakness point, these are:
1- "The arrangements to integrate the researcher in the host team are not convincing as they are not described sufficiently."
2- "The researcher has a relatively modest record of presentations at major conferences in the field." ----> I have deleivered up to now (in total 6 years) 19 talks/seminars/posters
Donot understand how come!!

[Fumansheh]

I agree...

I'm so sorry to hear that! I have also scored 4 in the impact section without any weakness mentioned. Just crazy

Didn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.

I got high 3s in the bottom sections and the comments weren’t severe or helpful (just general statements with little meaning). I think they need some better benchmarking.

[CountZ]

I understand the problems, and the aim of reaching out to the Commission, but I'm trying to assess the most impactful way of doing this.

[Frydendahl]

Got 89.6% in the CAR panel. Now on waiting list as number 17. Any hopes or guidance?

Wait, how do you tell your position on the reserve list? My letter didn't state anything besides me just being on the list, and the website doesn't show any updates at all.

[CountZ]

Any thoughts on this route? Would anyone here be interested in co-authoring such a piece?

[AdinaBabesh]

Chronicle of Higher ED or Op-Ed in Nature are good, and maybe the European Ombudsman as well.

I understand the problems, and the aim of reaching out to the Commission, but I'm trying to assess the most impactful way of doing this.
Maybe it isn't to reach out to the commission at all, but rather to write an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or an Op-Ed in Nature or something.