│ 1 The European Research Council Dr. Doc. Elisabeth Renney ERC Scientific Department, LS7 Panel Coordinator Zagreb, 10/11/2015.

│ 1

The European Research Council

Dr. Doc. Elisabeth RenneyERC Scientific Department, LS7 Panel

Coordinator Zagreb, 10/11/2015

│ 2

Outline

What do we offer?Funding schemes, opportunities

The Evaluation Procedure/ERC Modus operandiHow to prepare and submit a grant proposal

Tips, rumours and the "truth"

│ 3

What is special about the ERC?

•All fields of science and scholarship are eligible• Investigator-driven, bottom-up

•Scientific Excellence is the only criterion• Individual team + research project• Irrespective of nationality, gender or age of researchers

•Attractive grants• Significant, flexible grants, up to five years• Under full control of the Principal Investigator

• Independent individual teams in Europe• All nationalities can apply• Host organisation to be located in EU or Associated

Country

│ 4

Starting Grants

starters (2-7 years after PhD) up to € 2.0 Mfor 5 years

Advanced Grants track-record of significant research achievements in the last 10 years

up to € 3.5 M for 5 years

Proof-of-Concept bridging gap between research - earliest stage of marketable innovation up to €150,000 for ERC grant holders

ERC Grant schemes

Consolidator Grants

consolidators (7-12 years after PhD)up to € 2.75 Mfor 5 years

│ 5

Researchers career development and complementary funding schemes

Post-docs

Senior Professor

Students

Post Graduates

Junior Professor/ Junior Researcher

Associated Professor

Full Professor

Erasmus

Marie Curie

ERC AdG - Advanced

ERC StG - Starters

ERC CoG – Consolidators

│ 6

ERC offers independence, recognition & visibility

• to work on a research topic of own choice, with a team of own choice

• to gain true financial autonomy for 5 years

• to negotiate with the host institution the best conditions of work

• to attract top team members (EU and non-EU) and collaborators

• to move with the grant to any place in Europe if necessary (portability of grants)

• to attract additional funding and gain recognition

• ERC is a quality label

Creative research freedom of the individual ERC grantee

│ 7

Applicant legal entity: institution that engages and hosts

the PI for the duration of the project (25% overheads to HI)

Any type of legal entity: universities, research centres,

business research units … as long as it is in MS or AC

Commitment of HI: to ensure that the PI may

- apply for funding independently

- manage research and funding for the project

- publish independently as senior author

- have access to reasonable space and facilities

Host institution

│ 8

ERC Evaluation process (StG, CoG & AdG) Panel structure : 3 domains and 25 panels

Each panel : Panel Chair and10-16 Panel Members

Life Sciences (LS) 9

LS1 Molecular & Structural Biology & Biochemistry

LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics & Systems Biology

LS3 Cellular & Developmental Biology

LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology & Endocrinology

LS5 Neurosciences & Neural disorders

LS6 Immunity & Infection

LS7 Diagnostic Tools, Therapies & Public health

LS8 Evolutionary, Population & Environmental Biology

LS9 Applied Life Sciences & Non-Medical Biotechnology

Social Sciences and Humanities (SH) 6

SH1 Markets, Individuals & Institutions

SH2 The Social World, Diversity & Common Ground

SH3 Environment, Space & Population

SH4 The Human Mind and its Complexity

SH5 Cultures & Cultural Production

SH6 The Study of the Human Past

Physical Sciences & Engineering (PE) 10

PE1 Mathematics

PE2 Fundamental Constituents of Matter

PE3 Condensed Matter Physics

PE4 Physical & Analytical Chemical sciences

PE5 Synthetic Chemistry & Materials

PE6 Computer Science & Informatics

PE7 Systems & Communication Engineering

PE8 Products & Process Engineering

PE9 Universe Sciences

PE10 Earth System Science

│ 9

PART A – online forms

A1 Proposal and PI infoA2 Host Institution infoA3 Budget

PART B1 – submitted as .pdf

Extended Synopsis 5 pagesCV 2 p.Track Record 2 p.

Annexes – submitted as .pdf

• Statement of support of HI• copy of PhD or equiv. (StG & CoG)If applicable: • document for extension of eligibility

window (StG & CoG)• explanatory information on ethical issues

PART B2 – submitted as .pdf

Scientific Proposal 15 p.(incl. budget table)

Submission of proposalsProposal structure

│ 10

ERC Evaluation process : Submission of proposals

Single submission

• one deadline per Call

• to a targeted panel of your choice

• electronically only

• proposals have two parts:

• Part A: administrative forms

• Part B: scientific proposal itself (pdf)

• Step 1: Look at only Part B1

• Step 2: Look at Part B1 + B2

│ 11

Remote assessment by Panel members of section 1 – Synopsis and PI

Panel meeting

Proposals retained for step 2

STEP 1

Remote assessment by Panel members and reviewers of full proposals

Panel meeting + interview (StG+ CoG)

Ranked list of proposals

STEP 2

Redress

Evaluation of proposalsEvaluation procedure

Feedback toapplicants

│ 12

Main features in 2015 - 2016

• Strict resubmission restrictions

• Bs/step 1 restricted 1 year, Cs/restricted 2 years

• Bs/step 2, no restrictions

• Recommended model CV

• Obligation for Open Access

• 25 % HI overhead

• Funding ID in part B1

• Cross-domain explanation to be provided in part B1

│ 13

Excellence as sole criterion, to apply to:

Research Project Ground breaking nature Potential impact Scientific Approach

Principle Investigator (PI) Intellectual capacity Creativity Commitment

Evaluation Criteria

│ 14

Extensions of eligibility window possible for StG and CoG for documented situations of:

• Maternity – 18 months per child• Paternity – effective time taken off• Military service • Medical speciality training• Caring for seriously ill family members

• No limit to the total extension

Extensions of eligibility window

│ 15

• Panel members: typically 600 PMs

involved per call High-level scientists Recruited by ScC from all over the world About 10-15 members plus chair person

• Remote Referees: typically 2000 / call Each evaluate only a small number of

proposals

Other (7%)

Who evaluates the proposals ?

(7%) USA

│ 16

ERC panel members by country of HI and gender (7)ERC Starting, Consolidator and Advanced grant calls 2007 - 2014

UK

DE

FR IT NL

ES

SE

BE

AT

DK FI

PL

HU

PT

CZ

EL IE SI

BG

RO

HR

SK

CY LT

EE

LU LV

MT

CH IL

NO

TR

RS IS

MK

US

CA

AU JP RU

HK IN AR

SA

SG

BR

CL

CN

KR

MX

TW UA

CU IR ZA

EU Associate countries

International

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

ERC STG COG ADG panel members 2007-2014 by host institution country

M (71 %)

F (29 %)

# p

anel

mem

ber

s/p

anel

ch

airs

│ 17

Panel meeting – Step 1 Scoring

Results of Step 1:

A. Proposal is of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation

B. Proposal is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation

C. Proposal is not of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation

│ 18

Feedback to applicantsStep 2 results

Results of Step 2:A. Proposal fully meets the ERC's excellence criterion and

is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are available

B. Proposal meets some but not all elements of the ERC's excellence criterion and will not be funded

At the end of both steps, applicants will be informed about the ranking range of their proposal out of all proposals evaluated by the panel

│ 19

Restrictions of reapplications

• Ever increasing number of applications causes low success rates and high panel workload

• New for 2016 call applicants:

• those who receive a B at Step 1 have to wait out one year

• those who receive a C will have to wait out two years

!

│ 20

ERC StG, CoG, AdG 2014 Age of applicants at call publication date

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

AdG 2014

CoG 2014

StG 2014

Age of applicants at call publication date

# A

pp

lic

an

ts

│ 21

StG, CoG, and AdG 2014Age of grantee

26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65 680

102030405060708090

100

Age of 2014 grantees

ADG COG STG

age of grantee

# g

ran

tees

│ 22│ 22

StG 2014 GranteesYears past PhD

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160STG 2014 # years passed PhD

Years passed phD

# fu

nd

ed p

rop

osa

ls

│ 23

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

STG 2014 # years passed PhD by genderM (253)

F (122)

Female success rate (11.4 %)

Male success rate (11.7 %)

# fu

nd

ed p

rop

osa

lsStG 2014 GranteesYears past PhD

│ 24│ 24

CoG 2014 GranteesYears past PhD

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 160

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

COG 2014 # funded proposals and success rates by years past PhD and gender

M (268)F (104)F success rate (15.2 %)

# years past PhD

# fu

nd

ed p

rop

osa

ls

│ 25

ERC Starting Grant 2014 CallMobility: Incoming and staying grantees

DEUKFR NL IL ES IT DK AT BE IE FI SENOPT HUTR CZROCHRS0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8072

67

49

41

28

22

15 13 1310 10 8 6 6 6

3 2 1 1 1 1

Grand Total

Grantee staying in the country "non-European"

Grantee staying in the country "European"

Grantee moving to the country

country of host institution

# o

f g

ran

tees

│ 26

ERC Consolidator Grant 2014 CallMobility: Incoming and staying grantees

UK FR NLBE DK SE IE CZ FI

EE HR LU0

20

40

60

80

100

86

66

53

32 32

1613 12

9 9 96 6 5 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Grand Total

Grantee stayng in the country "non-European"

Grantee staying in the country "European"

Grantee moving to the country

Country of host institution

# o

f g

ran

tees

│ 27

ERC Advanced Grant 2014 CallMobility: Incoming and staying grantees

UK DE FR CH NL ES IT DK BE IL AT NO SE FI PT CZ IE0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50Grantee staying in the country "non Eu-ropean"

Grantee staying in the country "European"

Grantee moving to the country

Grantee in the country, national of the country

Country of host institution

# o

f g

ran

tees

45

29

23

22

18

13 1

16

4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1

│ 28

Call Planning 2016

• StG 2016 (2-7 years PhD)• Opens end July 2015• Deadline 17 November 2015

• CoG 2016 (7-12 years PhD)• Opens mid October 2015• Deadline 2 Feb 2016

• AdG 2016• Opens end May 2016• Deadline 1 September 2016

• PoC 2015 – Next deadline 1 October 2015 • Existing grant holders only

│ 29

• 2008/2010/2012/2014-AdG, SH4

• 2009/2011/2013/2015-AdG, LS7

• 2009/2011/2013-StG, LS3

• 2013-AdG, LS5

• 2013-CoG, SH5

• 2014-StG, LS6, PE5

Croatian Panel Members/Chairs

│ 30

2007-2014 submissions from Croatian HI (106), Croatian nationals (156, not shown)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2013

2014

2007

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

ADG COG STG

0

5

10

15

20

25

call

# su

bm

issi

on

s

│ 31

Croatian nationalities funded in other countries:

• ERC-2009-AdG, 2 persons in LS1, located in CH, and DE

• ERC-2010-StG, 2 persons in LS6 and PE3, located in DE and CH

• ERC-2011-StG, 1 person in LS1, located in UK

• ERC-2014-CoG, 1 person in LS2, located in FR

Other Croatia related info

│ 32

ERC in practice – tips, rumours and the truth

PLEASE DARE ASKING !!!!!

│ 33

ERC Grant is a proof of one's excellence / Quality label More than 5 000 scientists were successful More than 50 000 were not successful

Is there a key to success?

Le

gis

lati

on

FA

CT

S ERC supports novel ideas, creative minds (wherever they

are), European Research, ground-breaking results, high risk/high gain projects

Excellence as the only criterion

ERC Mission

Start preparing in time (6 months in advance) Read the evaluation criteria carefully (WP) Consult with successful grantees (if possible) Ask colleagues to proof read your application

KE

Y

│ 34

Publishing of the Call (including WP, guides for applicants)

Submission of the proposals (Deadlines)

Eligibility check

Evaluation step 1(assignment of the proposals, cross panel experts, Remote evaluation and Panel discussions at Panel meetings)

Feedback to the Applicants

Evaluation step 2(assignment of the proposals, cross panel experts, Remote evaluation and Interview (only for StG and CoG)

Feedback to the Applicants

Redress cases

Signing the Grant Agreement

ERC modus operandi

│ 35│

Questions to ask yourself as an applicant

• Is my project new, innovative, bringing in new solutions? theory? applications?

• Does it promise to go substantially beyond the state of the art?• Why is my proposed project important?• Is it timely? (Why wasn't it done in the past? Is it feasible now?)• What's the risk? Is it justified by a substantial potential gain? Do I have a

plan for managing the risk?• Why am I the best/only person to carry it out?• Am I internationally competitive as a researcher at my career stage and in

my discipline?• Am I able to work independently, and to manage a 5-year project with a

substantial budget• How can I prove/support my case?

│ 36

Preparing an application Hints and tips (Generalities)

Register early, get familiar with the system and templates and start filling in the forms

A submitted proposal can be revised until the call deadline by submitting a new version and overwriting the previous one

Follow the formatting rules and page limits.

Download and proof-read the proposal before submitting. Make use of the help tools and call documents (Information for

Applicants, Work Programme, Frequently asked questions) to prepare your proposal

Talk to the National Contact Points and your Institution's grant office

│ 36

│ 37

Read the guidelines carefully Consult EC and ERC websites check for funded projects on your topic (can

be done at any time!)

Choose your Host Institution (should be done well in advance) negotiate

Select the "right" Panel – very IMPORTANT, ID explanation

Choose your descriptors and free keywords carefully Presentation of the project

Follow the template (including length)

CV presentation

Project presentation

Tips - once the Call and supporting documents are published

│ 38

In Step 1: Panel members (generalists and with multidisciplinary approaches) see only Part B1 of your proposal: Prepare it accordingly!

Pay particular attention to the ground-breaking nature of the research project – no incremental research. State-of-the-art is not enough. Think big!

Know your competitors – what is the state of play and why is your idea and scientific approach outstanding?

Only the extended Synopsis is read at Step 1: concise and clear presentation is crucial (evaluators are not necessarily all experts in the field)

Outline of the methodological approach (feasibility) Show your scientific independence in your CV (model CV provided in the

part B1 template) Funding ID to be filled in

│

Submission of ProposalsDifferences in Part B1 and Part B2

│ 39

Submission of ProposalsDifferences in Part B1 and Part B2

In Step 2: Both Part B1 and B2 are sent to specialists around the world (specialised external referees)

Do not just repeat the synopsis Provide sufficient detail on methodology, work plan, selection

of case studies etc. (15 pages) Check coherency of figures, justify requested resources Explain involvement of team members (ERC proposals are

NOT collaborative ones) Provide alternative strategies to mitigate risk

│

│ 40

Proposal budget considerations

• Budget analysis carried out in Step 2 evaluation (meeting)• Panels have responsibility to ensure that resources

requested are reasonable and well justified• Budget cuts need to be justified on a proposal by proposal

basis (no across-the-board cuts)• Panels to recommend a final maximum budget based on

the resources allocated/ removed• Panels do not “micro-manage” project finances• Awards made on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis: no

negotiations

│ 41

It is your choice (in MS or Associated countries)

You can change it during the project's life (e.g. your career)

Negotiate with the HI (your position, equipment, administrative support, access to infrastructure, etc.)

Rumours

1. The quality /fame of the HI is increasing my chances/scores

2. There is a lobbying from the not so successful countries to introduce a quota

NOT true, 1. the HI is not an evaluation criteria and it is never discussed at the evaluation

meetings,

2. lobbying is firmly rejected, but WG are set-up to support less successful countries WP

Tips 1- Host Institution

│ 42

Decides on the panel which will evaluate your proposal

Is the basis of allocation to the panel members (with various expertise)

Will determine whether a cross panel evaluation is necessaryE.g. energy-related descriptors can be found in several panels e.g. PE2 (Fundamental Constituents of Matter, PE4 and PE5 (the Chemistry panels), PE7 (Systems and Comm. Eng.), PE8 (Products and Process Eng., incl. PE8_6 Energy Systems)

Rumours1. Choose the panel "strategically"

2. The more cross panel descriptors are indicated, the higher the funding chances, i.e. indicates inter-disciplinarity

NOT really true,

1. your project might be evaluated by a "wrong" panel" (only with restricted expertise)

2. If your project is interdisciplinary, decide on the evaluating panel based on the dominating innovative element of your project

Tips 2- Submission; Descriptors and free keywords

│ 43

Obvious link between Parts B1 and B2 (both evaluated only in step 2) Mention briefly the methodology and budget even in Part B1 (better chance to assess the scientific approach)

Clear and logical presentation (keep the recommended length)

Make use of the evaluation criteria (use them as title/subtitle)

Make the project "easy to read and attractive" Use paragraphs instead of long text

Use figures, charts whenever possible (colours)

Give timeline and show you did your homework (references/literature)

Describe accurately the requested budget vs. the proposed research (resources)

Rumours1. Ask for more money, the reviewers will anyhow cut it down

2. I need preliminary results

NOT true,

1. but unexplained or non-motivated requests can be cut down

2. if you have preliminary results include them, if they are absent, explain the "hypothesis" show support in literature

Tips 3- The project

│ 44

As important as your project (almost)

Clear and logical presentation (list all relevant facts)

"guide the reviewer"

Have a Researcher ID that can be generated on the web of science

Submit the web address in the application

If you know that you have gaps or other issues in your CV (e.g. co-authored publications), explain them

Give trend (if possible)

Describe accurately any other activity which can indicate scientific maturity

Rumours One needs publications in Nature/Science/Cell/high IF journals to succeed

NOT true, however, publishing with senior scientists (former supervisors) raises doubts about maturity/scientific independence. Give publishing trend is possible, explain gaps in the trend (maternity, illness, army, ..), explain publishing habits in your field and country

Tips 4- The CV

│ 45

Facts

Step 1: evaluation done by the Panel Members/PM (4-5/proposal) only, (remote) followed by panel discussions at the step 1 Panel Meeting

Step 2: evaluation done by remote reviewers (3-5) and Panel Members (3-4) (remote) + interview with the PI at step 2 Panel Meeting

You can exclude a reviewer (competitor, personal problems, etc.) including a PM

Panel members are selected by the Scientific Council (ScC) based on their scientific excellence and demonstrated outstanding scientific achievements

Remote reviewers (RR) are proposed by the Panel Members and approved by the ScC

All RRs are selected based on their scientific excellence and expertise

The list of all PMs is published at the end of the Calls, Panel Chairs are published before the Panel Meeting

Tips 5- The evaluation (1)

│ 46

TipsThink through your project, have a logical and clear step by step description

Explain risks if you can identify them and have a contingency plan

"Guide the reviewer", use evaluation criteria as title/subtitle

Rumours

1.There is request to include PMs from all Member States in the panels, not all are competent

2.PMs are generalists, with only few real experts, those can influence the panel decision

3.Expert PMs influence the panel decision by lobbying for their own country

NOT true, however,

4.if equal excellence/expertise is present, a positive discrimination might be applied (considering gender, grantee, geographic location, etc.)

5.PMs are excellent scientists, all used to evaluate projects at national and international level

6.The panel meetings are assisted by ERC scientific officers and independent observers (including members of the Scientific Council) to assure equal treatment and objective evaluation

│

Tips 5- The evaluation (2)

│ 47

Show your interest and enthusiasm – to be remembered by the PMs

Have clear and representative slides ("Less is more"!), focus on SCIENCE!

Look at the panel and not to the wall/slides - to be remembered by the PMs

Bring additional slides on new supporting data, if you can/have

Answer all questions, if not sure ask back the question

Don't over-explain your CV

Keep the time

PRACTICE !!!!!

Rumours

1.Choose your Acronym in alphabetical order, interviews are planned after alphabet

2.Late PM interviews have less chance, PMs are tired

NOT true, however,

3. Easy to remember acronym helps identifying the project during discussions

4. Tiredness can be there, "shake" the PMs up, place a joke, a comment…

│

Tips 6- Interview

│ 48

Increasing your chances

Address all evaluation criteria carefully

Be clear when describing scientific excellence

Show your ability of thinking outside the box

Show the progress beyond the state-of-the-art

If you have supporting preliminary results, include them

Support (literature) & visualise your hypothesis, if possible use charts, tables, images

Show "proof of maturity", think through the research you propose, identify risks and propose

alternatives to reach the goal (contingency)

Be realistic with your goals (don't over-dimension the Work Plan)

Have a well presented CV

Choose the correct descriptors (key words), don't "overuse" them

Use your own key words

│ 49

Final tips

Interview

Practice in advance

Be prepared for scientific questions

bring extra slides for possible explanations

If you have new preliminary results, show them

Show your interest and enthusiasm

Redressing

Before Redressing: don't blame the evaluator, see what could you have

done/explain/present better

Diverting scientific opinion is not motivating a redress

An obvious mistake might result in a re-evaluation

│ 50

Typical reasons for rejection

Principal investigator• Insufficient track-record• Insufficient (potential for) independence• Insufficient experience in leading projects

Proposed project• Scope: Too narrow too broad/unfocussed• Incremental research• Collaborative project, several PIs• Work plan not detailed enough/unclear• Insufficient risk management

Interview• Discussions/addressing the questions• Presentation

│ 51

ERC homepage: http://erc.europa.eusubscribe to ERC newsletter and newsalerts

http://erc.europa.eu/keep-updated-ercNational Contact Points -

http://erc.europa.eu/national-contact-pointsCroatian ERC-NCP: Nina Sertic, tel +3851 4594 541, www.mzos.hr

Where to applyhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/index.html

follow us onhttps://www.facebook.com/EuropeanResearchCouncil

https://twitter.com/ERC_Research

Further information

Thank you for your attention & Good Luck with your future application

[email protected]

European ResearchCouncil

│ 53

Some take-home messages…. ERC Awards are:

• Very competitive: ~10% success rates

• Significant: €1.5M – €2.0M for Starters / Consolidators

• Bottom-up: Open to any topic

• Ambitious: Achieve or boost independence; form a group

• Looking for High-risk/ High-gain research

• Flexible: Can re-budget as necessary

• Portable: Can be moved anywhere in Europe

• Prestigious: Will boost a research career