How to prepare a competitive MSCA Individual Fellowship … · 2018-07-24 · How to prepare a competitive MSCA Individual Fellowship proposal Grants in Practice (GIP) – EURAXESS

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….

II. Convocatoria MSCA IF 2015 I. Where to start

R&I Participant Portal

I. Where to start? (1)

• Funding Opportunities

• Horizon 2020 - MSCA

• Open Call IF 2018

• DOWNLOAD DOCUMENTS!

• Host Institution SUPPORT (Participation Identification Code of the institution, European Office to submit…)

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html

I. Where to start? (2)

5

Guide for applicants Participant Portal

Link to MSCA IF Open call

I. Where to start? (3)

6

Additional Documents - Participant Portal

I. Where to start? (4)

7

National Contact Points Grants in Practice Japan 2018

https://www.net4mobility.eu/

I. Now you can start!

8

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

Evaluation Criteria

Threshold: 70% No individual thresholds

Criteria Weight Priority

(ex.aequo)

Excellence 50% 1

Impact 30% 2

Implementation

20% 3

10

II. How is the MSCA IF 2018 evaluated?

II. MSCA: Evaluation Process

11

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

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)

II. MSCA – IF 2018: Evaluation panels

12

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

III. Some Data: Cut-off notes European Fellowships (EF)

AREA/PANEL 2014 2015 2016 2017

Chemistry (CHE) 89,6 90,8 91,8 91,4

Physics (PHY) 90,4 91,2 91,2 90

Mathematics (MAT) 80,2 91 91,6 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 92 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

III. Some Data: Cut-off notes Global Fellowships (GF)

SCIENTIFIC AREA 2014 2015 2016 2017

Chemistry (CHE) 93,6 94 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 93,8 92 91,4

Economic Sciences (ECO) 92,4 94 94,4 88,2

ICT and Engineering (ENG) 93,8 93,8 93,6 93

Social Sciences & Humanities (SOC) 92,8 93,6 95 92,4

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

IV. MSCA IF 2018: Document B1

16

• 10 pages!

• Download the template and follow it!

• Template in p.33/60 of the Guide for Applicants

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

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

Potential of the researcher to reach or re-enforce a position of professional maturity/independence during the

fellowship

IV. Excellence section: strenghts and weaknesses

18

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

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

20

“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.”

IV. Impact section: strenghts and weaknesses

“The relevance and quality of additional research training as well as of transferable skills

offered are clearly demonstrated.”

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

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)

IV. Implementation section: strenghts and weaknesses

22

II. Convocatoria MSCA IF 2015

1. Excellence 2. Impact 3. Implementation

4. CV 5. Capacities of the Participating Organisations (list + tables) 6. Ethical Aspects 7. Letters of Commitment

Page limit: 10

No limit per section

DOCUMENT 1

DOCUMENT 2

IV. Document B2 – MSCA IF 2018

23

II. Convocatoria MSCA IF 2015

FORM B2

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

IV. Document B2

List of participants here, before tables

24

25

V. It is not only about Excellence/Impact/Implementation!

Most of these have to be addressed within the proposal

Cross cutting issues

Focus on 6 policies: 1. Public

engagement 2. Gender equality 3. Science education 4. Open access 5. Ethics 6. Governance

*Responsible research and innovation

What is it How to address it in your proposal

International cooperation Underline in «Impact» the networks of all involved stakeholders

Social Sciences and Humanities Will it make sense for you to collaborate truly interdisciplinary? E.g. biology+sociology…?

Climate action and sustainable development

Check whether your proposal touches upon these issues

Intellectual Property Who owns what? Take a course / get in touch with your university’s TTO

26

V. Cross-cutting issues (1)

Gender balance in decision making processes Gender balance

in research teams at all levels

Gender dimension in research and innovation (R&I) content

V. Cross-cutting issues (2): Gender aspects

27

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

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

• 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.

V. Cross-cutting issues (3): Open Science – Open Data

29

IMPACT SECTION: - Set up a data management plan - Plan open access publication (and training)

• 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

V. Cross-cutting issues (4): Public Engagement (Impact)

All proposals will undergo an ethics review

31

• 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

V. Cross-cutting Issues (5): Ethics

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

VI. In a nutshell: When preparing a proposal

32

Thank you! Cristina Gómez - Spanish MSCA NCP [email protected]

33