Cristina Gómez Spanish National Contact Point MSCA

Transcription

1 How to prepare a competitive MSCA Individual Fellowship proposal Grants in Practice (GIP) EURAXESS Japan Tokyo and Osaka, July 2018 Cristina Gómez Spanish National Contact Point MSCA

2 CONTENT I. Where to start? II. How are the MSCA proposals evaluated? III. MSCA: A competitive programme IV. What does the proposal look like? Part B - Part B1: Excellence - Part B1: Impact - Part B1: Implementation - Part B1: Other sections V. Horizontal issues to take into account VI. In a nutshell. 2

3 II. Convocatoria MSCA IF 2015 I. Where to start

4 I. Where to start? (1) R&I Participant Portal Funding Opportunities Horizon MSCA Open Call IF 2018 DOWNLOAD DOCUMENTS! Host Institution SUPPORT (Participation Identification Code of the institution, European Office to submit )

5 I. Where to start? (2) Guide for applicants Participant Portal Link to MSCA IF Open call 5

6 I. Where to start? (3) Additional Documents - Participant Portal 6

7 I. Where to start? (4) National Contact Points Grants in Practice Japan

8 I. Now you can start! 8

9 II. Convocatoria MSCA IF 2015 II. How is MSCA evaluated

10 II. How is the MSCA IF 2018 evaluated? Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight Priority (ex.aequo) Excellence 50% 1 Impact 30% 2 Implementat ion 20% 3 Threshold: 70% No individual thresholds 10

11 II. MSCA: Evaluation Process FULL REMOTE EVALUATION 3 evaluators per proposal; 2 Vice-Chairs (VCs) of which 1 is rapporteur, and 1 cross-reader; 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. 3 experts with very different expertise You need to sell your project while keeping the technical information right 11

12 II. MSCA IF 2018: Evaluation panels Chemistry (CHE) Physics (PHY) Mathematics (MAT) Life Sciences (LIF) Economic Sciences (ECO) ICT and Engineering (ENG) Social Sciences & Humanities (SOC) Earth & Environmental Sciences (ENV) Career Restart Panel (CAR) Reintegration Panel (RI) Society and Entreprise Panel (SE) EF: 8 scientific panels GF: 8 scientific panels CAR + RI + SE: multidisciplinar panels Choose from 1 of the 8 panels Choose your descriptors (3 at least) 1 and 2: specific panel 3-4-5: any of the scientific panels Descriptors will help matching the proposal to evaluators with adecuate expertise A list of Descriptors = Guide for Applicants 12

13 III. Some Data: Cut-off notes European Fellowships (EF) AREA/PANEL Chemistry (CHE) 89,6 90,8 91,8 91,4 Physics (PHY) 90,4 91,2 91,2 90 Mathematics (MAT) 80, ,6 91,6 Life Sciences (LIF) 90,6 92,4 92,2 93 Economic Sciences (ECO) 86,6 89,8 90,6 89 ICT and Engineering (ENG) 88,6 90,8 91,8 91,4 Social Sciences & Humanities (SOC) 92,8 92,2 92,8 91 Earth & Environmental Sciences (ENV) 90,4 92, ,2 Career Restart Panel (CAR) 87,2 91,2 90,8 91,4 Reintegration Panel (RI) 90,8 92,2 92,6 93,4 Society and Entreprise Panel (SE) NA NA 80,6 83,6 13

14 III. Some Data: Cut-off notes Global Fellowships (GF) SCIENTIFIC AREA Chemistry (CHE) 93, ,6 93,2 Physics (PHY) 93 93,4 92,6 91,4 Mathematics (MAT) 92,2 91,6 88,6 93,2 Life Sciences (LIF) 91,8 93, ,4 Economic Sciences (ECO) 92, ,4 88,2 ICT and Engineering (ENG) 93,8 93,8 93,6 93 Social Sciences & Humanities (SOC) 92,8 93, ,4 Earth & Environmental Sciences (ENV) 93,4 93,6 93,6 92,6 14

15 IV. MSCA IF 2018: What does the proposal look like? FORM B TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 15

16 IV. MSCA IF 2018: Document B1 10 pages! Download the template and follow it! Template in p.33/60 of the Guide for Applicants 16

17 IV. MSCA IF 2018: Excellence Section Doc. B1 EXCELLENCE Quality and credibility of the research/innovation project; level of novelty, appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary and gender aspects Quality and appropriateness of the training and of the two way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host Quality of the supervision and of the integration in the team/institution Excellence 50% of the score Coherence and credibility Research and training, it is not about writing a paper! Excellence of the researcher, of the supervisor, host institution Potential of the researcher to reach or re-enforce a position of professional maturity/independence during the fellowship 17

18 IV. Excellence section: strenghts and weaknesses 18

19 IV. MSCA IF 208: Impact Section Doc. B1 IMPACT Enhancing the future career prospects of the researcher after the fellowship Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the project activities to different target audiences Impact 30% of the score Customize the section for the future prospects Science needs to reach further Expertise from both institutions and researcher from the dissemination/communication point of view 19

20 IV. Impact section: strenghts and weaknesses The proposal clearly describes how the completion of the project and the acquired skills will improve the career prospects of the applicant. "The proposal demonstrates convincingly how the fellowship will contribute to the development of the applicant s career, particularly in terms of international links and potential future international collaborations." "Much of the work to be done is a continuation of previous work of the applicant, which limits its impact on their career." It is not comprehensively explained in the proposal how the training provided will influence the researcher's career development. The relevance and quality of additional research training as well as of transferable skills offered are clearly demonstrated. 20

21 IV. MSCA IF 2018: Implementation Doc. B1 IMPLEMENTATION Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures, including risk management Appropriateness of the institutional environment (infrastructure) Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation: 20% of the score Convince the EC you have the resources and structure to manage the project Problems can be encountered, but you have the means to overcome them Essential: support of the host institution 21

22 IV. Implementation section: strenghts and weaknesses 22

23 IV. Document B2 MSCA IF 2018 DOCUMENT 1 1. Excellence 2. Impact 3. Implementation Page limit: 10 No limit per section II. Convocatoria MSCA IF 2015 DOCUMENT 2 4. CV 5. Capacities of the Participating Organisations (list + tables) 6. Ethical Aspects 7. Letters of Commitment 23

24 IV. Document B2 FORM B2 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL II. Convocatoria MSCA IF 2015 List of participants here, before tables 24

25 V. It is not only about Excellence/Impact/Implementation! Cross cutting issues *Responsible research and innovation Focus on 6 policies: 1. Public engagement 2. Gender equality 3. Science education 4. Open access 5. Ethics 6. Governance Most of these have to be addressed within the proposal 25

26 V. Cross-cutting issues (1) What is it How to address it in your proposal International cooperation Social Sciences and Humanities Climate action and sustainable development Intellectual Property Underline in «Impact» the networks of all involved stakeholders Will it make sense for you to collaborate truly interdisciplinary? E.g. biology+sociology? Check whether your proposal touches upon these issues Who owns what? Take a course / get in touch with your university s TTO 26

27 V. Cross-cutting issues (2): Gender aspects Gender balance in decision making processes Gender dimension in research and innovation (R&I) content Gender balance in research teams at all levels Gender Equality as a cross-cutting issue in Horizon 2020 and its three objectives: Gender dimension in Research & Innovation content Gender balance in decision-making in managing Horizon 2020 Gender balance and equal opportunities in project teams at all levels 27

28 V. Gender aspects (sections 1.1. and 1.2.) Gender dimension in research content means integrating sex and gender analysis into research. In other words, taking into account biological characteristics (sex) and social/cultural features (gender) of both women and men in R&I. It is an added-value in terms of innovation, creativity, excellence and returns on investments IMPORTANT: Does it matter whether test persons are male or female? Will the results affect male and females in the same way? Does it matter wether scientist is male or female? If no gender topics, write down gender does not apply because Google: your scientific keyword /area + gender : climate change + gender Keed in mind: gender equality is a pre-requisite for sustainable societal development 28

29 V. Cross-cutting issues (3): Open Science Open Data Applicants and beneficiaries should respect the Horizon 2020 strategic priority of Open Science. Open Science is an inclusive process aimed at promoting diversity in science across the European Union and opening it to the general public, in order to better address the H2020 societal challenges and ensure that science becomes more responsive both to socio-economic demands and to those of European citizens. Open Science also provides significant new opportunities for researchers to disseminate, share, explore and collaborate with other researchers. IMPACT SECTION: - Set up a data management plan - Plan open access publication (and training) 29

30 V. Cross-cutting issues (4): Public Engagement (Impact) Outreach activities are developed to attract a broad audience on a specific topic primarily to the general public The objective is to explain the benefits of research to a broad public (mainly citizens who pay our research with their taxes) Outreach activities can be developed in various ways; presentations in schools, workshops, talks, visits to laboratories, etc.. The outreach implies interaction between the researcher and the recipient, there is a relationship between both and the communication that is maintained is "back and forth 30

31 V. Cross-cutting Issues (5): Ethics All proposals will undergo an ethics review Human Embryos / Foetuses Humans Human Cells / Tissues Protection of Personal Data Animals Third Countries Environmental Protection and safety Dual Use Misuse Other Ethics Issues 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 B2 31

32 VI. In a nutshell: When preparing a proposal Read the Call Documents: Work Programme, Guide for Applicants, Horizontal Issues: Gender / Ethic Issues, etc, FAQ Language to be used: Write SMART (Simple, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely) and go to the point Technical and rigorous but, also appealing and readable for different evaluator s profiles Use the official template: Include the information where requested, evaluators will look at all headings and sub-headings A picture is worth a thousand words : use visuals to provide global information at a glance. Be aware of all criteria weight, it is not all about Excellence! Time and room for all of them! What is not written will not be evaluated Ask for support: Own institution: European Projects Offices / Transfer of Technology Offices / HR Departments / NCPs Colleagues, funded proposals Do not leave it for the last minute! Get familiar with the Participants Portal (upload a version and then overwrite ask the host institution for support 32

33 Thank you! Cristina Gómez - Spanish MSCA NCP Cristina.gomez@oficinaeuropea.es 33