The European Research Council - FFG
Transcript of The European Research Council - FFG
The European Research Council
© Art & Build Architect / Montois Partners / credits: S. Brison
ERC Advanced Grant CallUlrike Kainz-Fernández
Call Coordination and Project Follow-Up
ERC Executive Agency
Vienna, FFG, June 2019
│ 9
ERC and Austria
│ 10
ERC Funded Projects by Country of HI
│ 11
Success Rate by Country of HI
│ 12
Signed grants in Austria
0 20 40 60
Universitaet WienInstitute of Science and Technology Austria
Technische Universitaet WienOesterreichische Akademie Der Wissenschaften
Forschungsinstitut für Molekulare PathologieUniversitaet Innsbruck
Institut für Molekulare BiotechnologieUniversitaet Fuer Bodenkultur Wien
CEMM - Forschungszentrum Molekulare MedizinMedizinische Universitaet Wien
Technische Universitaet GrazInternationales Institut für Angewandte SystemanalyseGregor-Mendel-Institut für Molekulare Pflanzenbiologie
Universitat LinzVeterinaermedizinische Universitaet Wien
Medizinische Universitat InnsbruckParis-Lodron-Universitat Salzburg
Universitaet GrazMontanuniversitaet LeobenWirtschaftsuniversitat Wien
Ludwig Boltzmann GesellschaftMaterials Center Leoben Forschung
Austrian Institute of TechnologyUniversitaet Klagenfurt
ADG
COG
STG
POC
│ 13
138 foreign grantees in AT (62% of all grantees in AT!)
84 Austrian grantees in AT
80 Austrian grantees abroad, mainly in DE, UK, and CH
High Proportion of Foreign Grantees in Austria
│ 14
ERC Evaluation procedure
Evaluation of Proposals: Review procedure for StG, CoG and AdG
Remote assessment by Panel members
of section 1 – PI and synopsis (part
B1)
Panel meeting
Proposals retained
for step 2:
Score A
STEP 1
Score:B or C
STEP 2
Remote assessment by Panel members
and reviewers of full proposal (B1+B2)
Panel meeting + interview (StG and CoG)
Ranked list of
proposals:
Score A
Score: B
Feedback toapplicants
│ 16
│ 17
Evaluation of Proposals: Review procedure for StG, CoG and AdG
Remote assessment by Panel members
of section 1 – PI and synopsis (part
B1)
Panel meeting
Proposals retained
for step 2:
Score A
STEP 1
Score:B or C
STEP 2
Remote assessment by Panel members
and reviewers of full proposal (B1+B2)
Panel meeting + interview (StG and CoG)
Ranked list of
proposals:
Score A
Score: B
Feedback toapplicants
Evaluation of Proposals: Review procedure for StG, CoG and AdG
Remote assessment by Panel members
of section 1 – PI and synopsis (part
B1)
Panel meeting
Proposals retained
for step 2:
Score A
STEP 1
Score:B or C
STEP 2
Remote assessment by Panel members
and reviewers of full proposal (B1+B2)
Panel meeting + interview (StG and CoG)
Ranked list of
proposals:
Score A
Score: B
Feedback toapplicants
In order to make the evaluation process more effective, the Scientific Council has introduced re-submission restrictions.
• you can apply next yearA(unfunded)
• you can apply next yearB• you have to wait 1 year
before re-applyingB• you have to wait 2
years before re-applyingC
STEP
2ST
EP 1
I did not get the grant, can I apply next
year?
Panel members: typically 400 PMs involved per call
High-level scientists
Nominated by the Scientific Council
worldwide
About 12-16 members
Steps 1 and 2
Remote Referees: typically 2000 / call
Step 2
EU and AssociatedCountries
(86%)
US (7%)
Other
(7%)
Who evaluates your proposal?
│ 25* Number of instances that experts of a certain country of origin are contributing to the ERC peer review
ERC Panel Members by
Country of HI and Gender
Averaged over
2007-2017 29% of
the ERC panel
members were
women
• Conflict of Interest
• Equal treatment
• Pay attention to career breaks
• Gender
• Cross-panel proposals
• HI not an evaluation criterion
• Feedback to Applicants
• Confidentiality
Key Messages to experts
Briefing to panel members
• Maintain reputation of ERC's peer
review evaluation and consistent
approach across domains and panels
• Do not go for incremental research –
look for risky proposals (when the risk
taking makes sense)
• Track record – pay attention to any career breaks and focus on listed
publications, for AdG on the last 10 years
• Quality of the panel’s feedback summarised in the panel comment is
essential: substantial message
│ 28
Preparing and submitting a Proposal
Research Project
• Is my project new, innovative, bringing in new solutions/theories?
• Does it promise to go substantially beyond the state of the art?
• Why is my project important? Think Big!
• How can I prove/support my case? Have I proven the project's feasibility?
• Is it timely? (Why wasn't it done in the past?)
• What's the risk? Have I proposed alternatives?
Preparing your proposalQuestions to ask when preparing part B1
Principal Investigator
• Why am I the best/only person to carry it out? Know your competitors
• Am I able to work independently, and to manage a 5-year project with a substantial budget?
• Am I internationally competitive?
• Have I shown my scientific leadership in my CV?
│ 30
Preparing an application Check the already Funded Projects
Menu
allows
searching
by Funding
Scheme,
Research
Area,
Country of
Host
Institution.
Descriptors and free keywords may influence:
Evaluation Panel
Panel members
Whether a cross-panel evaluation is
necessary
Preparing your proposal Choosing the descriptors
Physical Sciences & Engineering PE1 Mathematics
PE2 Fundamental Constituents of Matter
PE3 Condensed Matter Physics
PE4 Physical and Analytical Chemical Sciences
PE5 Synthetic Chemistry and Materials
PE6 Computer Science and Informatics
PE7 Systems and Communication Engineering
PE8 Products and Process Engineering
PE9 Universe Sciences
PE10 Earth System Science
Life Sciences LS1 Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, Structural
Biology and Molecular Biophysics
LS2 Genetics, ‘Omics’, Bioinformatics and Systems
Biology
LS3 Cellular and Developmental Biology
LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology and
Endocrinology
LS5 Neurosciences and Neural Disorders
LS6 Immunity and Infection
LS7 Applied Medical Technologies, Diagnostics,
Therapies and Public Health
LS8 Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology
LS9 Applied Life Sciences, Biotechnology and
Molecular and Biosystems Engineering
│ 35
Evaluation Panel Structure (WP2019)
Social Sciences and Humanities SH1 Individuals, Markets and Organisations
SH2 Institutions, Values, Environment and Space
SH3 The Social World, Diversity, Population
SH4 The Human Mind and Its Complexity
SH5 Cultures and Cultural Production
SH6 The Study of the Human Past
│ 36
Example: panel and descriptors
composition of the ERC evaluation panels are by nature multi-disciplinary
initial allocation of the proposal to a panel is based on the preference expressed by the applicant
when additional expertise required
• additional reviews by appropriate members of other panel(s) or additional remote experts
• reallocated to a different panel with the agreement of both panel chairs
Preparing your proposal Choosing the descriptors
│ 38
Preparing an applicationCheck past panel members for the call
PART A – administrative online forms
A1 Proposal and PI infoA2 Host Institution infoA3 Budget/Resources
PART B1 – submitted as .pdf
Abstract and Cross-domain explanation 1 p.Extended Synopsis 5 p.(Recommended Model) CV 2 p.Funding ID 1 p.Track Record 2 p.Annexes – submitted as .pdf
Statement of support of HI
If applicable:
₋ explanatory information on ethical issues
PART B2 – submitted as .pdf
Scientific Proposal 15 p.
Preparing your proposalStep 5 .. Start filling the different sections!
In Step 1: Panel members see only Part B1 of the proposal (prepare it
accordingly!)
Pay particular attention to the ground-breaking nature of the research
project State-of-the-art is not enough
Know your competitors – what is the state of play and why is your idea and
scientific approach outstanding?
Part B1: concise and clear presentation is crucial (not all evaluators are
experts in your field)
Outline of the methodological approach is recommended (feasibility
assessment)
Show your scientific independence in your CV (model CV provided in the
part B1 template)
Preparing your Proposal:Differences between Parts B1 and B2
In Step 2: Both Part B1 and B2 are read by Panel Members & Remote
Referees
In part B2 do not just repeat the synopsis, go into details
Provide sufficient details on methodology, work plan, selection
of case studies etc. (15 pages)
Preparing your Proposal:Differences between Parts B1 and B2
Explain hypothesis or provide
preliminary data (if exists)
Make sure you give full references
(excluded from page limits)
Check coherency of figures
Budget analysis carried out in Step 2 evaluation (meeting)
Panels have responsibility to ensure that resources requested are
reasonable and well justified
Panels do not 'micro-manage' project finances
Budget cuts need to be justified on a proposal by proposal basis (no
across-the-board cuts), but unexplained costs are often cut!
Panels to recommend a final maximum budget based on the resources
allocated/ removed
Ask for funding for Open Access – this is obligatory in Horizon 2020!
Preparing your Proposal:Part A3: Proposal budget considerations
The new online budget table
│ 43
• ONE budget line per beneficiary / linked third party
• All costs have to be described and justified in the text box below the budget table
• Justify requested resources / Explain involvement of team members
│ 44
• Organize explanations heading by heading (use terminology of the budget table)
• If you request additional funding - you must describe and justify this request clearly in a
separate paragraph
• Remember to list the PI’s time commitment!
Resources – the narrative part
… ERC funds 'frontier research', including applied
research
… publication record is not decisive in selection decisions
… the Host Institution is not an evaluation criterion
… no indication that native English speakers are more
likely to succeed
… the budget is distributed among the scientific panels
as a function of demand, thus submitting to particular
panels does neither increase nor decrease the chances
Contrary to what you may think…..
Success rate by panel
82 84 78
102
131
83
149
107
77
102
143139
118
153155
126
151
110119
86
122
94
130119
108
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0
50
100
150
200
LS
1
LS
2
LS
3
LS
4
LS
5
LS
6
LS
7
LS
8
LS
9
PE
1
PE
2
PE
3
PE
4
PE
5
PE
6
PE
7
PE
8
PE
9
PE
10
SH
1
SH
2
SH
3
SH
4
SH
5
SH
6
ADG COG STG 2015-2017 number funded
SR
… not to delay in submitting a proposal
… gain experience from evaluation
… read evaluators comments
… redraft proposal
… reapply when possible
Success rates from re-applicants are typically 1.5 times higher than call success
rates
ERC encourages PIs
A few tips and advice
Do not include unnecessary partners and
collaborators; it is not supposed to be a
"consortium“
Justify requested resources – explain your
budget properly
Be ambitious and "daring"; panels instructed to seek out high-risk research
Grab interest and attention of readers/ reviewers
Remember that Part B1 will be seen by "generalists" (panel members)
If you make it to Step 2, reviewers see both B1 and B2, so do not repeat /
duplicate part B1 in part B2
Some useful tools and links
│ 52
Read Information for Applicants and
Work Programme
View the step-by-step video
Introduction to application process,
including tips & tricks for the interviewhttps://vimeo.com/94179654
Consult ERC website for latest funding
opportunities, view ERC funded projects
│ 53