How to join Marie Curie actions? Zkušenosti z pohledu hodnotitele.

Jiří Drábek XIII. tradiční setkání „Učíme se myslet: Věda jako

průprava dobrého lékaře“ Sanatorium EDEL, Zlaté Hory

4.–6. ledna 2013

http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/about-mca/actions/index_en.htm

Aims of this lecture

• To share experience • To ignite interest in potential applicants and

reviewers

Objectives of the Marie Curie Actions

• Strengthen the human potential in R&D in Europe • Stimulate people to enter into the profession of

researcher • Encourage researchers to stay in Europe • Attract researchers from around the world • Target researchers at any stage of their careers

Preparation phase for evaluators

• Confirming availability by reviewer • Paperwork • Invitation letter • Paperwork • Webinar • Access to online system (pruning of projects by

reviewer´s confidence) • Assigning project applications to reviewer • Indvidual assessment

Evaluation overview

Types of fellowships

Milestones of evaluation for evaluators

• Signature upon entry to the building • Signature when leaving the building • First version of your consensus reports (at home

phase) • Consensus report submitted online • Consensus report approved by two co-reviewers • Consensus report approved by vice-chair • Evaluation summary approved

10

• Evaluation according to criteria provided in the Guide for Applicants (see the objectives of the activity)

• Different criteria carry different weights • Thresholds for some evaluation criteria • Overall threshold is 70% • All issues need to be addressed

Principles of Evaluation criteria

11

• All proposals undergo initial eligibility check • Evaluation by at least three experts from an international pool

(not all experts are from your field of specialty) • Proposals that miss a threshold are rejected • Remaining proposals are ranked within each panel • All applicants receive evaluation summary report (can be used

for re-submission) • Distribution of funding to different panels in proportion to

proposals submitted • Reserve lists in case of late withdrawal etc.

Evaluation process

12

Individual Fellowships –Part B

• Evaluation criteria and thresholds (overall threshold 70%):

Criterion weight threshold

S & T Quality 25% 3/5

Training (IEF/IOF) Transfer of Knowledge (IIF)

15% IEF/IOF: 3/5 IIF: none

Researcher 25% 4/5

Implementation 15% none

Impact 20% none

S and T quality

• Strengths of the proposal – Research/technological quality, including any

interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal

– Appropriateness of research methodology and approach – Originality and innovative nature of the project, and

relationship to the 'state of the art' of research in the field – Timeliness and relevance of the project

• Weaknesses of the proposal

Researcher

• Strengths of the proposal – Research career potential – Research and technological quality of previous research – Independent thinking and leadership qualities – Match between the fellow's profile and project

• Weaknesses of the proposal

Implementation

• Strengths of the proposal – Quality of host organisation, including adequacy of

infrastructures/facilities – Feasibility and credibility of the project, including the work

plan – Management: Practical arrangements for the

implementation and management of the research project

• Weaknesses of the proposal

Impact

• Strengths of the proposal – Contribution to research excellence by attracting and retaining first

class researchers – Potential and quality of the researcher's long term professional

integration in Europe: • expected impact on the future career development of the researcher • expected length of the employment contract • attractiveness of the remuneration package

– Potential of transferring knowledge to the host organisation – Capacity to develop lasting co-operation and collaborations with other

countries – Plans for dissemination and exploitation of results – Impact of the proposed outreach activities

• Weaknesses of the proposal

17

Hints for a successful proposal • Follow the guide for applicants and address all issues

mentioned in the explanatory notes • Read also EVALUATION GUIDANCE NOTES for Marie Curie

Individual fellowships • Work closely with your chosen supervisor / scientist in charge

and their institution – this is a JOINT application • Plan your writing - focus on one section at a time, but keep

the “overall picture” in mind • Do not be repetitive – the same issue may appear in various

sections, but from different perspectives • Be concise and keep the page limit

18

…hints for a successful proposal

• Stick to the structure suggested in the guide for applicants – keep the evaluators happy.

• The evaluators may not all be world experts in exactly the area of your proposal – avoid using very specific jargon and acronyms.

• Provide the evaluators with evidence for your claims, avoid external resources (links to websites etc.).

• Graphics and charts must be readable in black & white.

19

…hints for a successful proposal

• Get a colleague to read through your proposal and do a “mock evaluation”

• If in doubt, ask your National Contact Point for clarification • If you want to avail of our pre-submission proposal check,

allow enough time for feedback. • Regularly upload preliminary versions of your proposal, and

finally hit “submit” • Keep the deadline

Scoring table

• 0 - The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information;

• 1 - Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses;

• 2 - Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses;

• 3 - Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary;

• 4 - Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible;

• 5 - Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.

Rules and hints for evaluators • Do not, under any circumstances, contact the applicant/ referees/ middle-

parties etc. • Conflict of interests, Code of conduct, Confidentiality • Write your comments using full and clear sentences for each criterion; • Structure your report by using strong and weak points based on the given sub-

criteria; • Everything you write must be briefly justified. • Avoid generalisations. If it is necessary say rather, e.g. “It has not been

demonstrated in the proposal that the host has the capacity to run this project”;

• Do not assume or anticipate the quality of an institution (even prestigious) and/or individual laboratory: it must be clearly detailed and demonstrated in the proposal;

• Check the consistency of scores and comments; Examples of statements to avoid: “very good candidate” and then allocating a mark of 3.9, i.e. a rejection (because of a threshold of 4 for the 'researcher' criterion);

Jargon

• Redress • Not sufficiently demonstrated • They • …

Google: how to become Marie Currie evaluator

Conclusions

• To applicants: choose right institution and follow instructions to the point

• To reviewers: apply and enjoy

Thank you for your attention!

jiri_drabek@seznam.cz