marie skłodowska-curie individual fellowships 2017curie actions (msca) research infrastructures...
TRANSCRIPT
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships 2017
María Gil 16 Feb 2017
We will talk about…
- MSCA-IF Overview
- Types of grants
- The application
- Part B: technical annex (Excellence, Impact,
Implementation)
- Comments from evaluators
- Evaluation
- A story of success!
Overview
Excellent Science
European Research Council (ERC)
Future and Emerging Technologies (FET)
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)
Research Infrastructures
Industrial Leadership
Leadership in Enabling and
Industrial Technologies (LEIT) -
ICT, KETs, Space
Access to Risk Finance
Innovation in SMEs
Societal Challenges
Health and Wellbeing
Food security
Transport
Energy
Climate action
Societies
Security
Widening Participation; Science with and for Society
European Institute of Innovation
and Technology (EIT) Joint Research Centre (JRC) EURATOM
Objective
Increase the creativity and innovative potential of experienced
researchers from any discipline.
Diversify their individual competence in terms of skill acquisition
through advanced training, international and intersectoral mobility.
Scope:
Awarded to the best researchers or those who are the most promising
Focused on career development, not on experience
Bottom-up approach
Expected impact
Extracting the full potential from researchers and achieve a significant
leap in their careers to broaden or deepen their competences.
Overview
What do Marie Skłodowska-Curie IF Grants offer?
- Salary during 2-3 years (4,650 eur PM)
Spain: 4,538* + 600 (mobility allowance) + 500 (family a.)
- Flat rate on research costs (800 eur/month)
- Indirect costs for the institution (650 eur/month)
* Correction coefficient applied to the living allowance
To whom?
Postdocs:
- Any career stage (from recent PhD holders to senior members)
- Any contractual situation (tenured, postdocs, unemployed, returning from breaks)
Fellowships will be awarded to the most talented researchers as shown by the
proposed research and their track record in relation to their level of experience:
you compete with your peers
Who is required:
- The applicant
- A supervisor
- A Host Organisation (+ partner organisations for secondments)
Types of Marie Skłodowska-Curie IF Grants
1. European Fellowships (EFs)
• 1.1. Standard European Fellowships
• 1.2. Career Restart Panel (CAR)
• 1.3. Reintegration Panel (RI)
2. Global Fellowships (GFs)
Which type depends on:
- Where you are
- Where you want to go to
Important: Mobility Rule
The researcher must not have resided or carried out
his/her main activity in the country of the host
organisation for more than
12 months in the 3 years (EF, GF)
36 months in the 5 years (RI, CAR)
immediately prior to the deadline for submission of
proposals.
Types of Marie Skłodowska-Curie IF Grants
European Fellowships
•12-24 months
•From any country to MS/AC
•Separate multi-disciplinary panels for Career Restart * and Reintegration
Global Fellowships
• 12-24 months plus 12 month return phase
• Secondment from MS/AC to third country
• Mandatory 12 month return phase in Europe (not subject to mobility rule)
* Career break in research of at least 12 months prior to deadline
Secondments
- 1 or more Partner organisations located in the Member States or
Associated Countries (country of Host Institution also OK)
- Clearly justified in the part B of the proposal and have a clear
impact on the project (i.e. they provide transfer of knowledge and
training)
- Can take place within the same sector but intersectoral
secondments may increase the impact of the proposal
- Single period or shorter periods
Schedule
Deadline
14 September 2017
17:00 Brussels time
Results and
ranking lists
February 2018
Grant Agreement
Signature
May 2018
Project starts
from May 2018
(you can
choose the
start date)
The Application
1. Register on the Participant Portal create EU Login
2. Part A: online Administrative form
3. Part B: Technical annex
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
1. EXCELLENCE
2. IMPACT
3. IMPLEMENTATION
4. CV OF THE EXPERIENCED RESEARCHER (max 5 pages)
5. CAPACITIES OF THE PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS
6. ETHICAL ASPECTS
7. LETTER OF COMMITMENT OF PARTNER ORGANISATION (GF only)
Max 10 pages (mind font and margins)
General tips
Before you start, try to answer:
Why is your project important?
Why now?
How will you do it?
Why you?
Is it really a European priority?
Artfully presenting your good science against the background of the underlying
EU political priorities and mandates, and how your proposal addresses both, is a
good points-scorer, especially when it comes to the prioritization of proposals in
the ranking list and winning in the details
Strike a ‘balance’ in your proposal between proving the good science in it, and
at the same time make it a good marketing pitch
General tips
Your project should revolve around a clear and simple idea
Choose an interdisciplinary project (with intersectoral secondments) if possible
Describe the state-of-the-art carefully
The project should not be a continuation of your dissertation
Proposal has to add value in the specific field, for the career development of the
researcher and the EU at large
Goals, methodology (advantages/disadvantages; risks and contingent
alternatives), and work plan must be clear and consistent (content-wise and time-
wise)
At best: the results are applicable directly
Prepare a summary or diagram before you start writing, and follow it
Ideas to structure your project
1. Scientific and
Technological quality
Need
Project idea and
concept
Objective 1
Objective 2
Objective n
2. Implementation
Deliverable 1
Deliverable 2
Deliverable n
Milestone 1
Milestone 2
Milestone n
Work Package 1
WP 2
WP n
3. Impact
Expected result 1
Expected result 2
Expected result n
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator n
Expected impact 1
Expected impact 2
Expected impact n
For each scientific objective, establish
training objectives!
1. Excellence
1.1 Quality, innovative aspects and credibility of the
research
1.2 Clarity and quality of transfer of
knowledge/training for the development of the
researcher in light of the research objectives
1.3 Quality of supervision and hosting arrangements
1.4 Capacity of the researcher to reach/reinforce a
position of professional maturity in research
1.1 Quality, innovative aspects and credibility of the research
- Intro, state-of-the-art, objectives and overview
- Methodology
- Originality and innovation
- Emphasise Inter/ Multidisciplinary aspects
- How does your project contribute to advancement of your field?
- The project has to be highly innovative and ambitious, but realistic
1.1 Quality, innovative aspects and credibility of the research
Strengths
-The project is innovative and will contribute to answer unaddressed questions in the field.
- The applicant offers a sound overview of some of the important questions related to the field.
-This research is very timely and relevant.
- The research objectives are clearly stated, and while ambitious, realistic.
- The proposal addresses a relevant research area for the EU.
- The topic is relevant from an academic perspective, but also from the point of view of relevant EU policies.
-The state-of-the art is adequately addressed/ There is potential progress beyond the state-of the-art.
- Project is hypothesis driven/ the hypothesis ensures high project credibility.
- The project is clearly inter- and multidisciplinary.
Weaknesses
- Most recent international results/developments are not mentioned.
- There is insufficient detail regarding the originality of the proposal approach.
- The proposal provides only a modest level of innovation.
- There is insufficient detail regarding the impact on European excellence.
1.2 Transfer of knowledge/Training
- How does the researcher gain new skills by training at the
host institution? (Why is the host institution the perfect
match?)
-How does the host institution benefit from the research stay
of the scientist and his/her expertise?
- For GF, how will the skills acquired in the Third Country be
transferred back to the host institution in Europe?
1.2 Transfer of knowledge/Training
Strengths
- The applicant will gain knowledge in xxxx, skills which will complement the applicant’s background.
- At this stage of career, the research maturity of the applicant is illustrated by a good track-record of
publications and participation to conferences. Furthermore the applicant has successful experience
of teaching and mentoring, and fund raising.
-The potential for transfer of knowledge is very high since the applicant brings technical skills to the
host.
-The applicant offers pertinent information on how their knowledge will be transferred to the host.
- The proposed research provides a good carry-over of the applicant's former achievements.
- There is a good match between applicant's expertise and the objectives of the project.
Weaknesses
-The nature of training is not sufficiently detailed in the proposal.
-The applicant does not provide sufficient detailed information on the duration and
execution dates of the different actions described in relation to training and transfer
of knowledge.
Supervisor
Positions, international collaborations, total number of publications
and H-index, project portfolio, main scientific results
- Who are the members of the research team, what kind of
research are their doing and how your research complements the
whole team
Hosting arrangements
– How will the host contribute to the advancement of your career?
– What kind experience does the department have with
international staff?
– Practical help (mentoring, meetings, etc)
1.3 Quality of the supervision and the hosting arrangements
Strengths
- The qualifications and experience of the supervisor are demonstrated.
- The supervisor is a world-wide leading expert in xxx fields.
- The institutional environment is very good and the research environment is stimulating.
- The host institution is providing the applicant with adequate resources to support the
development of an independent career.
- The Hosting institution has multidisciplinary academic capacities related to the research topic.
- The host maintains several international collaborations with leading groups in the field.
-The host shows a consolidated experience in setting up practical arrangements for the
implementation and management of projects.
Weaknesses
-The opportunity for creating new long term collaborations is not
outlined.
1.3 Quality of the supervision and the hosting arrangements
1.4 Capacity of the researcher to reach/reinforce a position of professional maturity in research
Describe your personal achievements and potential:
- Your scientific background is unique
- You have an excellent potential
- You are able to carry out the project
-You would greatly benefit from this project
Do not be modest: show off!
Strengths
- The Applicant has demonstrated extensive teaching and relevant research experience
in fields related to this proposal.
- The fellow’s record of publications in relevant issues is of high quality and the teaching
and research experience show someone with high capacities and qualities for engaging
in a high quality project.
- Leadership qualities are sufficiently highlighted by the applicant and are convincing.
-The potential for reaching a position of professional maturity in research through this
fellowship is sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant.
Weaknesses
-It is not clear how the fellowship will reinforce the applicant’s
professional maturity.
1.4 Capacity of the researcher to reach/reinforce a position of professional maturity in research
2. Impact
2.1 Enhancing research and innovation related skills and working
conditions to realise the potential of individuals and to provide new
career perspectives
- Advantages of this fellowship for your personal career development (new career
perspectives, expertise and collaborations)
- Developes your full potential
- Impact of your research on European society & for European excellence
2.2 Effectiveness of proposed measures for communication and
results dissemination
- Scientific publications
- Public engagement: activity as a “Marie Skłodowska-Curie Ambassador”, participation in
Researchers’ Night, in Escolab, and scientific events and conferences for society at large
- Exploitation of results and intellectual property rights
Strengths
- The interdisciplinary aspects of the proposed research are highlighted by the Applicant.
- The Applicant has very clear training objectives and they clearly presents what kind of new
knowledge they will gain from the hosting organization during the fellowship.
- Outreach activities targeted at audiences beyond the research community are adequately
covered.
- Communication of the action including a blog, articles in the general media on the topic, and
lectures in secondary schools is adequate for the proposed project.
-Plans for dissemination activities and engagement with the wider public are sufficiently detailed
and adequate.
- Measures for protecting intellectual property have been considered in sufficient detail.
Weaknesses
- There is insufficient detail regarding the implementation of the
proposed outreach activities.
- Insufficient reference is made to electronic dissemination channels.
- It is not clear how the proposal will benefit the European society.
2. Impact
3. Implementation
3.1 Overall coherence and effectiveness of work plan & Gantt ch.
3.2 Appropriateness of management structures and procedures,
including quality management and risk management
3.3 Appropriateness of the institutional environment (infrastructure)
3.4 Competences, experience and complementarity of the
participating organisations and instit. commitment
Strengths
- The infrastructures and facilities at the host institution are in line with the needs set out for the execution
of the project/ The host laboratory provides very high quality infrastructure and state of the art facilities.
- The Hosting institution has extensive experience in integrating Marie Curie Fellows.
- The general methodological aspects for the development of the project are soundly based on previous
experience of the group.
-The work plan is realistic and convincingly addresses the research objectives. It also includes adequate
milestones and deliverables supporting the feasibility of the project.
-The Applicant offers enough evidence to demonstrate that the fellowship has a maximum chance of
successful outcome.
- The project organization and management structure are addressed with detail.
- Potential risks have been outlined and satisfactory alternative strategies/ contingency plan are proposed.
Weaknesses
- The research objectives are not very well linked with the research methodology.
- There is insufficient detail regarding the description of Work Packages.
- The work plan is not coherent.
- Insufficient information is given about the financial management and progress monitoring.
- The potential risks are only marginally addressed.
3. Implementation
4. CV
1. Publications in major, peer-reviewed conference proceedings and/or monographs
of their respective research fields, indicating also the number of citations
2. Granted patent(s).
3. Research monographs, chapters in collective volumes
4. Invited presentations to peer-reviewed, internationally established conferences
and/or international advanced schools
5. Research initiatives that the Experienced Researcher has led
6. Organisation of International conferences in the field of the applicant
(membership in the steering and/or programme committee)
7. Examples of participation in industrial innovation
8. Prizes and Awards
9. Funding received
10. Supervising and mentoring activities
5. Capacity of the Participating Organisations
We can help you!
6. Ethical Issues
Ethics Self-Assessment (Part B)
The Ethics Self-Assessment must:
1) Describe how the proposal meets the EU and national legal and
ethics requirements of the country/countries where the task raising
ethical issues is to be carried out.
2) Explain in detail how you intend to address the ethical issues flagged,
in particular with regard to:
- The research objectives (e.g. study of vulnerable populations,
cooperation with a Third Country, etc);
- The research methodology (e.g. clinical trials, involvement of children
and related information and consent/assent procedures, data protection
and privacy issues related to data collected, etc.);
- The potential impact of the research (e.g. dual use issues,
environmental damage, malevolent use, etc.).
Evaluation
Evaluation criteria
• Each criterion will be scored out of 5 (decimal points)
• Best overall score: 100 points, minimum: 70 points
• Ranking list per panel based on overall score: A =
recommended for funding, B = reserve list, C = rejected for
budgetary reasons, D = insufficient quality
0 – Proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or
incomplete information.
1 – Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent
weaknesses.
2 – Fair. Proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.
3 – Good. Proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are
present.
4 – Very Good. Proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of
shortcomings are present.
5 – Excellent. Proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any
shortcomings are minor.
Evaluators
Choose the right evaluation panel:
If you do not clearly belong to one, choose the one which can
best appreciate both your CV and the project
Choose specific keywords:
- Avoid mentioning all the areas which are partially relevant
- Avoid using ambiguous / open terms
Results MSCA-IF-2016:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participan
ts/portal/doc/call/h2020/msca-if-
2016/1757610-
msca_if_2016_percentile_en.pdf
Evaluators: write it for the reader
Follow the template and use the same words as in the
enunciates Proposal built around the evaluation criteria
Be factual and cite external references to support your
statements. Generic (but empty) statements are the most typical
failure
Well organised and well written text, easy to read
Use EC references and language
