MSCA individual fellowships

Transcription

1 MSCA individual fellowships The dos and don ts from the reviewers perspective Frauke Christ, Innovation Manager My experience as a evaluator Biologist with PhD in biochemistry (JLU Giessen, Germany) Postdoc in structural biology (Harvard University) IOF Manager, drug discovery (KU Leuven) Reviewer for national and international funding organizations: individual fellowships and multi-partner projects (academia and industry focussed) 1

2 The MSCA evaluation process in a nutshell First invitation to the panel safe the date (Spring 2017) Second invitation (Fall 2017) each retained reviewer is assigned a set of proposals on basis of keywords independent (blind) evaluation of proposals by 3 reviewers Individual reports are drafted highlighting strengths and weaknesses In case the scores match: the rapporteur writes a remote consensus report In case the scores do not match: rapporteur opens a virtual discussion on scores/remarks Several rounds of consensus drafting Consensus needs approval by 3 evaluators Mediation by the chair in case of conflict Consensus approved by chair Ranking of all proposals The evaluation process in a nutshell First invitation to the panel safe the date (Spring 2017) Second invitation (Fall 2017) each retained reviewer is assigned a set of proposals on basis of keywords independent (blind) evaluation of proposals by 3 reviewers Individual reports are drafted highlighting strengths and weaknesses In case your proposal is a resubmission the rapporteur In case will thehave scores access match: to the previous evaluation In case summary the scores do not the rapporteur writes a report. match: rapporteur opens a remote take consensus coments report into account whenvirtual drafting discussion the new on application scores/remarks Several rounds of consensus drafting Consensus needs approval by 3 evaluators Mediation by the chair in case of conflict Consensus approved by chair Ranking of all proposals 2

3 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. He/she will not read the entire proposal twice. Don not use to complicated sentences. Add figures which help to understand your proposal. Structure your proposal well, do not provide blocks of of text, make headlines that evaluators can easily find back the essential information Before starting to draft your proposal have a very close look to the guide for applicants and address all criteria & subcriteria (the reviewers 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 sqeezing as much text into it as possible. The criteria for evaluation 50% 30% 20% Weigthing Priority in case of ex aequo Overall threshold 70% 3

4 The criteria for evaluation 0 1,0-1,9 2,0-2,9 3,0-3,9 If you score below your chances are very low 4,0-4,9 5 When reading the report you will find statements like: rather unfocused, not fully comprehensive, underestimated etc. Applicant can only be penalized once for a mistake. Only a subset of remarks in the initial evaluation reports will make it in the final report. Careful assessment that no contradiction is present. The criteria for evaluation: excellence MSCA 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. A simple me-too project will not have a change. Prepare well with your host institution describing 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) 4

5 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. 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 make the link to your past achievements and your vision of your future carreer. 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? 5

6 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? 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. 6

7 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. 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). 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) 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. 7

8 The criteria for evaluation: implementation 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 and milestones. Include conferences, likely moments of publications. Allocation of tasks and resources: Are PM appropriate in relation to activities? 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? 8

9 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 9

10 19/06/2017 Curriculum vitae This is about marketing sell your self but avoid arrogance Everything that is special needs to be highligthed (prizes, invitations for lectures, IP.) If there are gaps in your CV do not try to hide, explain them. Any unexplained gap will raise suspition and will make you less competetive. Describe you major research accomplishment (for example describe in 1-2 sentences why a publication of your was seminal) Do not forget to mention mobility, projects you applied for, presentations at conferences, supervision of students etc. 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. Thank you and good luck! 10