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

[Alps18]

First time posting on this forum, just to share my experience and some info on the reserve list.
I was applying for the first time. ST LIF, scored 93.4% with a cut-off at 93.6%.
I contacted my NPC and I am 22th on the reserve list. She told me people ranked 1 to 6 in the reserve list have a score of 93.6%, which is the exact score of the cut-off.

[AdinaBabesh]

Then those proposals must be funded as well.

First time posting on this forum, just to share my experience and some info on the reserve list.
I was applying for the first time. ST LIF, scored 93.4% with a cut-off at 93.6%.
I contacted my NPC and I am 22th on the reserve list. She told me people ranked 1 to 6 in the reserve list have a score of 93.6%, which is the exact score of the cut-off.

[Alps18]

Then those proposals must be funded as well.

First time posting on this forum, just to share my experience and some info on the reserve list.
I was applying for the first time. ST LIF, scored 93.4% with a cut-off at 93.6%.
I contacted my NPC and I am 22th on the reserve list. She told me people ranked 1 to 6 in the reserve list have a score of 93.6%, which is the exact score of the cut-off.

Well, this is where the fine lines of the H2020 work programme are applied. Amongst those people scoring 93.6%, first ranked are the one performing better in the "excellence" part, etc....

[MSCA_FAN]

Miss posting and chatting here.

Me too!

So, I am not the only one coming back!

[Thana2019]

Bren, did you hear anything more from your NCP about that passage in your acceptance letter about Brexit and possible no deal scenario?

Miss posting and chatting here.

[CountZ]

btw these people have been added to the group
Geezer_MSCA
Thana2019
CAR-2018

[Thana2019]

This is great CountZ, I will send private message. I definitely think that it is important to be very specific in criticism of the reviewing system and also propose concrete actions that we think will resolve the issue: actions that could not theoretically put other applicants at a disadvantage, and that are relatively straightforward to implement. Otherwise they will never bite!

I was wondering why they don’t treat resubmissions (in same topic/project) completely differently, with reviewers assigned only to review how well the previous comments were dealt with. Seems more straight forward for them and more fair for those who otherwise run the risk of getting a (significantly) lower score.

[Giu83]

Hi again everyone

We are writing a complaint to the Commission about unfair evaluation processes, but we need your help.
If you think that the evaluation is unfair, please tell us why. Maybe you got a much lower score on re-submission. Maybe you don't think your proposal should have received the high/low score it did. The goal is the get the Commission to rethink its evaluation process, so as to make this less of a lottery, and instead to reward the best proposals. You can quote this message and fill in the following:

Proposal acronym:
Proposal ID:
Your field/area:
Reason you believe the system is unfair:
Suggestion for improving it:

Please also Private Message your email address to me or to Dajm, if you wish to: (1) be recontacted about our complaint, (2) have an opportunity to sign the complaint before we send it.

As I said in a previous message, my proposal is a resubmission scored 89,6 in 2017. After reviewing my project according to the weaknessess raised my project has received a score of 71,2. None of the previous weaknessess has been evidenced by reviewers ( that means I have addressed all the criticisms) but, although the project was exactly the same, it was rejected due to a serious number of inherent weaknesses. In the last paragraph of the evaluation report reviewers state that " Over the years proposal are usually assessed by different evaluators who may express different judgements and opinions.....This may lead to a difference in scoring results and opinions". Of course this makes sense, but not such a huge drop as in my case ( from 89, 6 to 71 is 20%less than the year before). Furthermore, I also found some inconsistences between strenghts and weaknesses, as follows (just some examples):

Excellence
Strenghts

The researcher will benefit from the host institute’s experience in MRI technique and research in psychiatric disorders as well as from the
host institute's international network, and gain new skills in supervising.

The researcher has a good track record of successful research, publication, teaching activities and previously acquired skills and awards,
demonstrating their potential to reach maturity.

Weaknesses

- It is not sufficiently detailed how the new skills build on existing skills and how they contribute to the researcher's professional maturity.



Impact
Strengths:
- The fellowship will enhance the scientific, clinical and technical scope of the researcher, thus widening the potential career opportunities.
- There is an adequate strategy and plan to disseminate to the scientific community with publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations
at conferences and scientific press releases.
- There is a strategy for commercialisation of the results.

Weaknesses
- I is not sufficiently clear how the project will enhance the career prospects of the researcher.
- Although the strong track record of technology transfer and IP of the host is outlined, the scope of the current project is limited in terms of
potential for technology transfer and IP applications.
- Dissemination to stakeholders like pharma companies, regulatory bodies, and policy makers is insufficiently addressed.

[IF ST LIF]

Hi again everyone

We are writing a complaint to the Commission about unfair evaluation processes, but we need your help.
If you think that the evaluation is unfair, please tell us why. Maybe you got a much lower score on re-submission. Maybe you don't think your proposal should have received the high/low score it did. The goal is the get the Commission to rethink its evaluation process, so as to make this less of a lottery, and instead to reward the best proposals. You can quote this message and fill in the following:

Proposal acronym:
Proposal ID:
Your field/area:
Reason you believe the system is unfair:
Suggestion for improving it:

Please also Private Message your email address to me or to Dajm, if you wish to: (1) be recontacted about our complaint, (2) have an opportunity to sign the complaint before we send it.

As I said in a previous message, my proposal is a resubmission scored 89,6 in 2017. After reviewing my project according to the weaknessess raised my project has received a score of 71,2. None of the previous weaknessess has been evidenced by reviewers ( that means I have addressed all the criticisms) but, although the project was exactly the same, it was rejected due to a serious number of inherent weaknesses. In the last paragraph of the evaluation report reviewers state that " Over the years proposal are usually assessed by different evaluators who may express different judgements and opinions.....This may lead to a difference in scoring results and opinions". Of course this makes sense, but not such a huge drop as in my case ( from 89, 6 to 71 is 20%less than the year before). Furthermore, I also found some inconsistences between strenghts and weaknesses, as follows (just some examples):

Excellence
Strenghts

The researcher will benefit from the host institute’s experience in MRI technique and research in psychiatric disorders as well as from the
host institute's international network, and gain new skills in supervising.

The researcher has a good track record of successful research, publication, teaching activities and previously acquired skills and awards,
demonstrating their potential to reach maturity.

Weaknesses

- It is not sufficiently detailed how the new skills build on existing skills and how they contribute to the researcher's professional maturity.



Impact
Strengths:
- The fellowship will enhance the scientific, clinical and technical scope of the researcher, thus widening the potential career opportunities.
- There is an adequate strategy and plan to disseminate to the scientific community with publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations
at conferences and scientific press releases.
- There is a strategy for commercialisation of the results.

Weaknesses
- I is not sufficiently clear how the project will enhance the career prospects of the researcher.
- Although the strong track record of technology transfer and IP of the host is outlined, the scope of the current project is limited in terms of
potential for technology transfer and IP applications.
- Dissemination to stakeholders like pharma companies, regulatory bodies, and policy makers is insufficiently addressed.

I feel you pain... went down to 77% from a 92.6% project that was on the reserve. Makes no sense such a big drop

[Mojca]

To me it sounds like re-submissions were penalised heavily this year.
Another thing this forum is the first internet page that does not seem somehow monitored by EC, and where I found useful information. The presentations from the info days, or presentations from people who won the grants seems that convey the same information like they were intentionally limiting the information.