How to apply for a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship

Transcription

1 How to apply for a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship Simon Smith Sociologický ústav SAV (with thanks to Margaret Credland of the University of Leeds Research and Innovation Service for the content of some slides)

2 The application process One stage evaluation process Part A Administrative information The majority of this information is supplied by the host organisation Part B - Free Text description of the research project based on evaluation criteria This part is usually written by the researcher

3 Register on EPSS Register in good time and know the forms

4 Part B Maximum 25 A4 pages excluding: Table of contents B6 ethical issues table Start and end page Read thoroughly the Horizon2020 Work Programme and the Guide for Applicants

5 Evaluation Criteria IEF (old)

6 Evaluation Criteria IEF (new) Excellence Impact Implementation Scientific Quality, Training, Supervision, Researcher Impact on Researcher and Research Users 50% 30% 20% Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Workplan, Management, Environment, Institutional Competence and Commitment

7 General tips and recommendations Structure your proposal according to the headings provided Duplicate information where necessary Don t expect the evaluators to be experts in your research field Don t expect the evaluators to make assumptions Stress any involvement of third parties such as businesses and other research labs Think about presentation Provide justification Be specific Provide evidence/examples Remember the IEF is about career development as well as research

8 Scientific quality element Demonstrate experience in research field of host organisation and the scientist in charge Research track record International collaborations Participation in projects Publications Patents Have a strategy for addressing deficits Justify why you need to be there

9 Training element Explain how fellowship will add different /complementary scientific skills Explain how these will be beneficial for the development of fellow s research career Outline any complementary skills training to be provided Detail the benefits to Europe of researcher acquiring proposed new skills

10 Researcher element Outline major research achievements of Fellow - Funded Projects - Publications - Patents - Reports - Participation at conferences Include short description of 3 major research accomplishments Max 250 words in total - Purpose - Results - Skills acquired - Outcomes

11 Implementation element Demonstrate the host s ability to deliver the project Detail the facilities available at the host organisation that will enable the project to be delivered Describe how participants from different sectors /disciplines will collaborate Prove the host has the capacity to manage and absorb the project Demonstrate the host(s) have experience of managing /delivering research projects in similar research areas

12 Impact element Describe how the fellowship will enable the fellow to gain competencies & skills (immediate benefits) Specify how the fellowship is expected to enhance capabilities to work and/or communicate across disciplines and sectors Explain how the fellowship will help fellow to reach &/or reinforce position of professional maturity & independence Detail benefits of complementary skills &/or skill diversification Describe how the fellowship will contribute to European research excellence and European competitiveness Justify how the mobility is genuine significantly different working environment/country

13 Ethics element Ethics are taken very seriously by the European Commission Not an evaluation criteria, but could be a reason for exclusion! A thorough research ethics review will take place after acceptance before your grant is approved Local arrangements need to be in place

14 Personal experience What did the reviewers like? Interdisciplinarity, timeliness, well-articulated methodology, additional supervision and training arrangements, communication with non-academic audiences, project fits profile, clear plan for deliverables, strong career development plan, connection to European thematic priorities, previous experience in Slovakia, awareness of ethical issues What did the reviewers criticise? Lack of specifics about some methods, hypotheses insufficiently specified, skills already acquired, weaknesses of host organisation on specific topic, capacity for support if the project runs into difficulties (my overall score was 93.9)