EVALUATING ERC AdG PROPOSALSEVALUATING ERC AdG PROPOSALS

- A Personal View – - A Personal View –

Dainis Dravins ─ Lund Observatory

www.astro.lu.se/~dainis

ERC Headquarters, Covent Garden, Brussels

ERC Advanced GrantsERC Advanced Grants

ERC Advanced GrantsERC Advanced Grants

The referee perspectiveThe referee perspective* First year: Fear of too many applications, * First year: Fear of too many applications,

fast-choice listing prepared based on fast-choice listing prepared based on bibliometricsbibliometrics

* Two-part application may be wastful but * Two-part application may be wastful but is set by limits on referee availabilityis set by limits on referee availability

* How to find external referees without * How to find external referees without connection to applicant organizations?connection to applicant organizations?

Two acceptances require ~six invitations.Two acceptances require ~six invitations.

The referee perspectiveThe referee perspective* Panel members are appointed for * Panel members are appointed for

typically five years, but on an every-other-typically five years, but on an every-other-year schedule, i.e. there are two year schedule, i.e. there are two

(sub-)panels that change places once a (sub-)panels that change places once a year. year.

* This enables panel members to apply * This enables panel members to apply themselves (which they cannot do while themselves (which they cannot do while serving) and also assures that returning serving) and also assures that returning

proposals will be evaluated by a proposals will be evaluated by a completely different panel the following completely different panel the following

year.year.

Evaluating applicationsEvaluating applications* Exact amount applied for practically does * Exact amount applied for practically does

not matter: either all or nothing is not matter: either all or nothing is awarded.awarded.

(Although the extra 1 M€ for equipment up to 3.5 M€ could matter)(Although the extra 1 M€ for equipment up to 3.5 M€ could matter)

* Name (acronym) of project actually does * Name (acronym) of project actually does matter. This is referred to during handling; matter. This is referred to during handling;

should be informative and ‘catchy’.should be informative and ‘catchy’.

* ~100 applications per panel, everyone * ~100 applications per panel, everyone reads everything. Need to stand out in the reads everything. Need to stand out in the

crowd.crowd.

Evaluating applicationsEvaluating applications

* Often consensus which ~1/3 of * Often consensus which ~1/3 of applications are ‘best’ but which are applications are ‘best’ but which are top 10% is somewhat random, often top 10% is somewhat random, often

following some short comment.following some short comment.

* Panel members are ‘generalists’. * Panel members are ‘generalists’. Many proposals lack a ‘popular’ Many proposals lack a ‘popular’

introduction, making them rather introduction, making them rather incomprehensible. Do not fill pages incomprehensible. Do not fill pages

with walls of text, but include figures.with walls of text, but include figures.

Evaluating applicationsEvaluating applications

* Instructions ask for a detailed CV. * Instructions ask for a detailed CV. Beyond a page or two, it is not likely to be Beyond a page or two, it is not likely to be

read.read.

* Instructions ask for detailed project * Instructions ask for detailed project plans but detailed overplanning loses plans but detailed overplanning loses

credibility.credibility.

* Some look like requests for institute * Some look like requests for institute running expenses. Panel members easily running expenses. Panel members easily recognize these and promptly reject them.recognize these and promptly reject them.

Evaluating applicationsEvaluating applications

* Do not write “must have ERC funding to * Do not write “must have ERC funding to carry out…” – may kill application.carry out…” – may kill application.

* Credibility: Some topics are fashionable * Credibility: Some topics are fashionable and similar proposals come from and similar proposals come from

different groups.different groups.

All of them want to employ new people. All of them want to employ new people. from the few familiar with this topic. But from the few familiar with this topic. But if the postdocs etc. are ‘good’, they may if the postdocs etc. are ‘good’, they may not be interested to work as ‘assistants’.not be interested to work as ‘assistants’.

ERC Advanced GrantsERC Advanced Grants

Issues for approved projectsIssues for approved projects

* ERC instructions speak about risky, daring * ERC instructions speak about risky, daring novel projects. However, much of what is novel projects. However, much of what is awarded actually is ‘more of the same’. awarded actually is ‘more of the same’.

* Relying on past performance in terms of * Relying on past performance in terms of awarded grants, publications etc., implies awarded grants, publications etc., implies

that the activity already is well established.that the activity already is well established.

((Maybe a fear in the beginning, that failed Maybe a fear in the beginning, that failed projects could cause bad publicity?)projects could cause bad publicity?)

Issues for approved projectsIssues for approved projects

* Geographic and linguistic bias: Arguably, * Geographic and linguistic bias: Arguably, the most serious issue with ERC grants. the most serious issue with ERC grants.

* Proposals are in English, proposals by * Proposals are in English, proposals by applicants with a good command of itapplicants with a good command of itappear to have a clear advantage. appear to have a clear advantage.

* Often ‘those that already have will get * Often ‘those that already have will get more’; less risky to award to a group that more’; less risky to award to a group that already has been found worthy by others.already has been found worthy by others.

ERC Advanced GrantsERC Advanced Grants

ERC Advanced Grants 2014ERC Advanced Grants 2014