msca individual fellowships
TRANSCRIPT
MSCA individual fellowships
The “dos and don’ts” from the
reviewers perspective
Frauke Christ, Innovation Manager
Presentation overview
1. The MSCA evaluation process
2. General considerations before preparing your proposal
3. Excellence
4. Impact
5. Implementation
6. CV
7. Conclusions
1. The MSCA evaluation process in a nutshell
• First invitation to the panel “safe the date” (May 2019)
• Second invitation (Fall 2019)
• Identification of any conflict of interest
• Proposal are first assigned on basis of keywords
• Final assignment of proposals to experts by REA staff
In case your proposal is a resubmission the rapporteur
will have access to the previous evaluation summary
report.
►take comments into account when drafting the new
proposal
The evaluation process in a nutshell
Proposal
submission
Eligibility check
EC
rap
po
rteu
r
3 independent experts
Consensus
report and
scores
approved by
all 3 experts
vic
ec
ha
ir
Ethics check
of highest ranked
proposals
Summary report and
ranking by the panel
(vice-chairs)
observers
Chair and vice-chairs (experienced MSCA experts)
• When reading the report you will find statements like:
“rather unfocused”, “not fully comprehensive”, “not sufficiently”,
“underestimated”…etc.
• Applicant can only be penalized once for a mistake.
• The final report is a condensed version of remarks, which are supported by all
evaluators. Only a subset of remarks in the initial evaluation reports will make it in the
final report.
• Careful assessment that no contradiction is present (legal staff).
• All projects are evaluated independently and not in comparison with other proposals.
• The scores need to reflect exactly the consensus report carefully weighting negatives
and positives.
• E.g. a score of ‘4.0’ cannot be supported with evaluation remarks stating ‘excellent’
The criteria for evaluation
2. To be kept in mind while preparing your proposal....
• You should prepare your poposal for both expert and non-expert evaluators. Therefore
finding a good balance between sufficient detail and making your point clear to the
educated non-expert. Being comprehensive is essential.
• The time an expert will spent on your proposal is limited. Most will not read the entire
proposal twice. Do not use too complicated sentences. Add figures which help to
understand your proposal. Prevent balast.
• Structure your proposal well, do not provide blocks of of text, make headlines that
evaluators can easily find back the essential information. Add meaningful figures.
• Before starting to draft your proposal have a very close look to the guide for applicants
and address all criteria & subcriteria (the experts check whether you have done that)
• Write all parts with your own words and do not copy paste from others. Changes in
style are easy to spot and give a very negative impression.
• Do not write a “H2020” proposal but also not a masterthesis project. The workbalance
of the project is important.
• Do not strech the page limit by squeezing in as much text as possible.
The criteria for evaluation
50% 30% 20%
Weighting
1 2 3
Priority in case of ex aequo
Overall threshold 70%
If you score below your
chances are very low
0
1,0-1,9
2,0-2,9
3,0-3,9
4,0-4,9
5
The criteria for evaluation
3. The criteria for evaluation: excellenceMSCA is all about excellence. You need to reach for the stars here and
have a CV and project which demonstrate excellence.
Quality, innovative aspects and credibility of the research:
Present your project in a simple and clear manner (remember the non-expert
evaluator)
Stress innovation, state-of-the-art, cutting edge, multidisciplinary and
appropriateness of your approach. A simple me-too project will not have a
change.
Prepare well with your host institution. Describe and reason how you can
integrate yourself and aquire new knowledge
Collaborating with different PIs (secondments) is a plus as it exposes you to
new research and additional department/institutions (but keep in mind to
describe the management well)
If applicable add gender issues.
The criteria for evaluation: excellence
Clarity and quality of transfer of knowledge/training:
Reflect well how the training at the host lab will influence your career, stress
the hands on training, new techniques etc. Provide a vision it needs to be a
‘give and take’ situation.
The two-way transfer is very important.
Describe complementary skills training (project management, supervision,
proposal writing....)
Do not just list courses such as “project manangement” of the TTO but
explain why are they of importance, how this will help you to become an
independent researcher draw the link to your past achievements and your
vision of your future career.
These ‘soft’ skill aspects are important to let the experts see that you aim
high.
The criteria for evaluation: excellence
Quality of supervision:
Provide information on the hosting PI (h-index, previous training expertise,
projects, describe the group of the host)
Is it the place-to-be for your research project? Why?
How will you integrate in the group/institute/organization?
Describe international networking opportunities.
The criteria for evaluation: excellence
Capacity of the researcher:
Describe you major achievements and link them to the project. How will this
contribute to becoming a high potential? (link to your CV)
Mention mobility during PhD, publications highlighting first author publications
(impact factor, citations). For the most important ones provide 2-3 sentence
explaining why they are of importance in your field.
Demonstrate independent thinking and describe your match with the project
Demonstrate your potential to reach a position of professional maturity
Excellence: typical mistakes
• Scientific project description is either too ambitious and complex or not
ambitious enough.
• No clear structure of the scientific part.
• Too strong focus on the scientific part; keep in mind this is only ¼ of
excellence.
• Objectives are left out or are not well aligned with the scientific description.
• The host group is not in the position to train complementary skills (e.g. only
postdocs no PhDs/masters)
• No objectives for transfer of knowledge/training
• Innovative/interdisciplinary aspect is not worked out well enough.
• No fall back position in the project description.
Impact is difficult to write for a young scientist but is of high importance.
You need to make clear that you understood the true meaning of MSCA for
your career and for the European research environment.
Enhancing research and innovation-related human resources....:
The support you receive for leveraging your career.
In case you collaborate, highlight the network you are going to establish (impact on
your future career).
4. The criteria for evaluation: impact
Impact is difficult to write for a young scientist but is of high importance.
You need to make clear that you understood the true meaning of MSCA for
your career and for the European research environment.
Communication and dissemination:
Do more than publishing your results. Mention the appropriate conferences you will
be attending (workshops, major meetings etc.)
Do not forget exploitation and IP managment.
Provide an original dissemination plan (outreach to different target groups)
Identify your stakeholders. How are you going to address these in a tailored way?
4. The criteria for evaluation: impact
Impact: typical mistakes
• Failure to address the different impact levels: YOU-HOST-EU
• Dissemination activities are not original and copy-paste from the host
institution.
• Failure to address and define different target groups for dissemination.
• Dissemination is left to the end of the funding period.
• Dissemination activities not mentioned in the Gantt chart.
Your workplan is very important. Provide a feasible and credible plan,
which is ambitious but feasible. Ask for input from the host institution.
Overall coherence and effectiveness of the workplan:
Relevance and state-of-the-art of the project.
Gantt chart (based on quarterly or monthly) with clear allocation of tasks,
deliverables and milestones. Include conferences, likely moments of
publications and secondments (if applicable)
Do not built the project on one single WP.
Allocation of tasks and resources: Are PM appropriate in relation to activities?
Do not forget the ‘additional resources’ – easy to penalize
5. The criteria for evaluation: implementation
The criteria for evaluation: implementation
Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures:
IMPORTANT: Do not forget the mitigation strategy/contingency plan
Are you aware of risks? Do you have a plan what to do if you encounter these
risks?
Have you implemented monitoring mechanisms? Financial management?
The criteria for evaluation: implementation
Competences, experience and complementary....institutional
commitment:
Describe well why you are the best match for the host lab and why the host
lab is the best match for you.
What do you learn from each other (complementarity)?
What does the host institution provide (training, facilities, infrastructure etc.).
Do not forget to include two levels: institutional and group. If asking for
secondment add relevant info for this second host as well.
Impact: typical mistakes
• Go/non-go milestones early in the project
• No clear milestones and deliverables defined
• Failure to provide a convincing workplan (e.g. month 1-3 purchasing of
material, last 6-10 months for data analysis and publishing/dissemination)
• No mitigation or poor mitigation strategy (applicants have the tendency to
describe only one risk to illustrate that they thought about it, but to not
make it look like a high risk project-not credible for a reviewer)
• Scientific objectives are not in line with the workplan
• Workplan solely focusses on scientific objectives
• Workplan is sequential and not parallel
6. Curriculum vitae
• This is about marketing…”sell your self” but avoid arrogance
• Everything special needs to be highligthed (prizes, invitations for lectures,
IP….) showcase your individuality
• In case your CV has gaps do not try to hide, explain them. Any
unexplained gap will raise suspicion and will make you less competetive.
• Describe you major research accomplishment (for example describe in 1-2
sentences why your publication was seminal)
• Do not forget to mention mobility, projects you applied for, presentations at
conferences, supervision of students etc.
• If something is special about you, mention it.
• In case space allows, a personal statement helps.
Give your best in writing as it is an important part of your
training.
Let someone read your proposal who is not an expert to get
advice whether it is well structured, convincing and coherent.
Keep in mind that MSCA is highly competitive. It is not about
writing a good proposal. It is about being better than anyone
else. You have to stand out to score excellent.
Ask your host PI to work on this together with you. He/she has
most likely drafted more successful proposals in the past.
Aim high, 92% is not enough
….but….
Not getting the grant does not mean that you are not
an excellent scientist
7. Conclusions