Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions - MSCA IF 2020 Call

European Fellowships - Application Advice Cristina Gómez – Spanish National Contact Point (NCP) MSCA Webinar EURAXESS Australia – June, 4rd 2020

CONTENT

I. NCP Support system – Net4mobility+

II. What makes a good proposal

• Some general reminders

• Some data

• Understanding the evaluation Criteria

III. Writing Part B1 and B2

IV. Take home messages

2

3

I. NCPs and Net4mobility+

4

Individual research project: training-through-research under the direct supervision of the supervisor / key staff of the institution.

Hands on training:

for developing scientific skills (new techniques, instruments, etc. )

For developing and acquiring transferable skills:

Proposal preparation to request funding

Patent applications, management of IPR, take up and exploitation of results,

Action management, task coordination, how to properly communicate

Gender issues, research integrity, Open Science, etc.

Intersectoral or interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge (secondments…). Secondments can take place in MS / AC .

Organization of scientific / Training / dissemination events

Communication, outreach activities, public engagement

II. A typical IF

SUPERVISOR • The scientist appointed at the

beneficiary to supervise the researchers throughout the whole duration of the action.

• For GF a co-supervisor must be appointed at the partner organization.

• A supervisor can supervise several fellows.

FELLOW • The researcher appointed by the

beneficiary to implement the research project described in the application.

• A candidate can only submit one proposal.

PROPOSAL

HOST INSTITUTION

(EPO)

FELLOW

SUPERVISOR

PARTNER ORGANIZATION

II. MSCA Actors

5

MSCA Researcher Unit Cost (person/month) Institutional Unit Cost (person/month)

Living Allowance *

Mobility Allowance

Family Allowance

Research, training and networking

Management and overheads

IF 4.880 600 500 800 650

Budget pre-calculated by EC, base on unit costs 100% financing

6

RESEARCHER UNIT COST Living Allowance: • CCC: country correction factor applies (host country) • Gross EU contribution living allowance: 58.560€/ year (-

cuota patronal, - taxes, - S.S…) before taxes! Family Allowance: determined at the submission deadline

INSTITUCIONAL UNIT COST Research, training and networking costs: • Purchase of material, organisation and travel to

events, payment of conferences fees, etc. Management and overheads: • Indirect costs for institutions

II. Be aware of the funding!

II. Data: some perspective

7

MSCA 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of evaluated proposals 7.409 8.380 8.829 8.957 9.676 9.709

Number of retained proposals 1.305 1.163 1.188 1.348 1.351 1.475

Success rates % 17,6 13,9 13,5 15 14,6 15,1

Budget in mio EUR 240.5 215 218 248.7 273 296.5 328

II. Submitted & Main list: MSCA IF 2019

8

Eligible Main List

MSCA-IF-EF 8885 1272

MSCA-IF-GF 824 203

ST CAR RI SE GF

2019 13,08% 20,14% 20,37% 27,55% 24,64%

2018 12,40% 17,97% 19,39% 15,29% 21,68%

Success Rate

AREA/PANEL 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Chemistry (CHE) 89,6 90,8 91,8 91,4 92,8 92,4

Physics (PHY) 90,4 91,2 91,2 90 90,8 91,4

Mathematics (MAT) 80,2 91 91,6 91,6 92,6 91,2

Life Sciences (LIF) 90,6 92,4 92,2 93 93,6 92,6

Economic Sciences (ECO) 86,6 89,8 90,6 89 89,4 91,6

ICT and Engineering (ENG) 88,6 90,8 91,8 91,4 93 92,4

Social Sciences & Humanities (SOC) 92,8 92,2 92,8 91 92,6 93,0

Earth & Environmental Sciences (ENV) 90,4 92,2 92 92,2 92,4 93,4

Career Restart Panel (CAR) 87,2 91,2 90,8 91,4 91,2 89,4

Reintegration Panel (RI) 90,8 92,2 92,6 93,4 92,4 93

Society and Entreprise Panel (SE) NA NA 80,6 83,6 87 82,2

9

II. Data: European Fellowships (EF) Cutt-Off Scores

10

II. IF 2019 Statistics: funded proposals per action

2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017 data include signed Grants from reserve list; 2018 data are Main list only; 2019 data are from Grant Agreement Preparation phase.

11

II. IF 2019 Statistics: proposals funded per country

2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017 data include signed Grants from reserve list; 2018 data are Main list only; 2019 data are from Grant Agreement Preparation phase.

12

II. IF 2019 Statistics: Resubmissions

Resubmissions TOTAL

declared: 1825

confirmed: 1584

confirmed & eligible: 1576

347

success rate: 22,02%

retained for funding:

13

II. IF 2019 Statistics: Research experience

0-3y 4-6 y 7-9y 10-12y 13-15y >15y PhD in progress No PhD

16,49% 15,53% 14,72% 14,25% 7,01% 6,76% 10,99% 5,41%

Success rate

Evaluation Criteria

Threshold: 70%

No individual thresholds

Criteria Weight Priority (ex.aequo)

Excellence 50% 1

Impact 30% 2

Implementation 20% 3

14

II. Evaluation Criteria

II. Evaluation criteria …

15

16

Most of these have to be addressed within the proposal

Cross cutting issues

Focus on 6 policies: 1. Public

engagement 2. Gender equality 3. Science education 4. Open access 5. Ethics 6. Governance

Responsible research and innovation

II. … and more…

17

FULL REMOTE EVALUATION • 3 evaluators per proposal; • 2 Vice-Chairs (VCs) of which 1 is

rapporteur, and 1 cross-reader (depending n. proposals);

• SEP Hands-on Training for VCs; • Improved briefing for experts:

web-briefing (unconscious bias added), Q&A chat sessions, evaluators guide, SEP guidance movie;

• SEP workflow and functionalities adjusted to ease the remote consensus discussion;

• Minority views: Specific slots for teleconferences will be foreseen in order to solve critical cases remotely, before the central phase.

II. Who evaluates and how

18 18

II. Who evaluates and how

Each expert draft a IER (individual evaluation report) for each proposal assigned

In the IER:

List strengths and weaknesses in bullet point format

•Under each sub-criterion

•For each criterion (excellence, Impact and Implementation)

They will Score each Criterion

19

Important: - Select the corret scientific descriptors! - When further prioritisation is needed,

aspects such as intersectorial mobility / gender aspects are taken into account

19

II. Who evaluates and how

CHE Chemistr

y

SOC Social

Sciences and Humanities

ECO Economic Sciences

ENG Information Science and Engineering

ENV Environmental and

Geosciences

LIF Life

Sciences

MAT Mathematics

PHY Physics

Descriptors will help matching

with evaluators

Abstract (Part A) Help matching with

evaluators, and evaluators accept a

proposal

Title and Acronym • Self-explanatory • Memorable

Panel matching with a set

of evaluators

20

II. Who evaluates and how

Part A (electronically)

Part B1 (PDF upload)

Part B2 (PDF upload)

III. Parts of a proposal

• 4. CV of the experienced researcher (indicative length: 5 pages) • 5. Capacities of the participating organisations (1 page for the overview

and 1 page for each participating organisation - indicative) • 6. Ethical aspects • 7.Letter of commitment of the partner organisation (for GF only)

No overall page limit applied

• 10 pages total • No section page limit • excess pages will automatically be

disregarded

NO COVER PAGE AND NO TABLE OF CONTENTS!

21

Read Guide for Applicants!

III. Excellence Section

III. Excellence Section

III. Evaluation Criteria- Impact

III. Impact Section

III. Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation Section IMPLEMENTATION WHAT TO EVALUATE

3.1. COHERENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE WORK PLAN, INCLUDING APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ALLOCATION OF TASKS AND RESOURCES

How the work planning and the resources mobilised will ensure that the research and training objectives will be reached

Wheter the amount of PM planned is appropriate in relation to the proposed activities A Gantt Chart must included:

Work Packages titles (at least 1 WP) List of major deliverables, if applicable List of major milestones, if applicable Secondments, if applicable

3.2. APPROPRIATENES OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES, INCLUDING RISK MANAGEMENT

The organisation and management structure, as well as the progress monitoring mechanisms put in place, to ensure that objectives are reached

The research and/ or administrative risks that might endanger reaching the action objectives and

the contingency plans to be put in place should risks occur

3.3. APPROPRIATENESS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONEMENT (INFRASTRUCTURE)

The beneficiary´s active contribution to the research and training activities

The main tasks and commitments of the beneficiary and partners (if applicable)

The infrastructure, logistics and facilities offered and needed for the good implementation of the action

For Global Fellowships, indicate the role of the partner organisation in Third Countries.

27

III. The importance of a Good Chart

Part A (electronically)

Part B1 (PDF upload)

Part B2 (PDF upload)

III. Parts of a proposal

• 4. CV of the experienced researcher (maximum length: 5 pages) • 5. Capacities of the participating organisations (1 page for the

overview and 1 page for each participating organisation) • 6. Ethical aspects • 7.Letter of commitment of the partner organisation (for GF only)

No overall page limit applied

• 10 pages total • No section page limit • excess pages will

automatically be disregarded

NO COVER PAGE AND NO TABLE OF CONTENTS!

28

II. Convocatoria MSCA IF 2015

III. Document B2

29

II. Convocatoria MSCA IF 2015

List + tables: Institutional information: ask your European Project Manager at the Host Institution

III. Document B2

30

Proposals expected to be funded will undergo an ethics review

Participants have to:

• Identify all potential ethical aspects

• Explain their future management

• Give a detailed explanation at proposal stage

Description on Ethics:

• Ethic Issues Table en part A

• Ethics Self-Assessment en part B

III. Document B2

31

Important: Admissibility criteria!

III. Document B2

32

IV. Get familiar with the programme!

Funding and Tenders Participant Portal

33

About the project :

• Your proposal is not a research proposal as such, but a proposal for training in research

• Don´t be over-ambitious –it is a common flaw that the work plan is not realistic

• Be precise – less is sometimes more; structure the proposal well

• Try to have the best match researcher/supervisor/Host Institution

About your CV:

• Your CV doesn´t have to be perfect, but the training should mend any shortcomings

• Your employability after the fellowship is key

IV. Take-home messages

34

About the evaluation:

• The weighting of criteria is 50% -30% -20%. You need to perform at close to 100% on each

• Follow the template –the evaluators need to find all key points

• Your reviewers may not be specialists in your field

• “Una imagen vale más que mil palabras”: use visuals to provide global information at a glance

General Approach:

• It is an individual project but a collaborative work.

• Involve your own institution: European Projects Offices / Transfer of Technology Offices / HR Departments, other colleagues…

• National Contact Points…

• Get familiar with the Participants´Portal, upload a version, you will be able to rewrite it

IV. Take-home messages

35

Thank you very much!

Cristina Gómez

MSCA NCP in Spain, FECYT

msca@oficinaeuropea.es

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that

we may fear less