My experience evaluating MSCA-IF applications · 2019-05-06 · Briefly about me •Cognitive neuroscientist at Dept. of Psychology, UiO •Currently in the last year of my NFR/MSCA-COFUND

My experience evaluatingMSCA-IF applications

Dan-Mikael Ellingsen, PhD

Department of Psychology, University of Oslo

Structure

1. Briefly about me

2. How reviewers think

3. Pitfalls/Common mistakes (general)

4. Score (easy) extra points

5. Some specifics for individual sectionsa) Excellence

b) Impact

c) Implementation

Briefly about me

• Cognitive neuroscientist at Dept. of Psychology, UiO

• Currently in the last year of my NFR/MSCA-COFUND mobility grant (after 3.5 years at MGH/Harvard Medical School)

• Reviewed 13 MSCA-IF proposals, and...• 8 other H2020 grants

• ~35 journal papers

• Mostly within the biomedical/psychology fields

• Most MSCA-IF evaluators shaped by other kinds of reviewing..

How reviewers think• Paid 0.3 working days (2.5-3 hours) for each proposal• Many reviewers do several/lots of proposals (while

already being overworked)• Relatively tight time schedule (~a couple of weeks)• Consequence: Many reviewers quickly decide whether

they like/dislike/don’t care• Often during Excellence 1.1 (Quality and credibility...)• Then spend the rest of the time looking for arguments to

support their initial impression

How reviewers think• But, reviewers think very differently

• Striking differences at consensus stage

• Closeness to your field/topic

• Detail-oriented vs big-picture

• Punishing (easily annoyed) vs forgiving

• My experience: bad proposals usually get low scores, but good proposals can get anything from mediocre to great scores

• Get feedback from several people with different backgrounds

• Keep in mind: I’m notrepresentative for all reviewers

Common pitfalls• Unorganized

• make it easy for the reviewer to follow your arguments and agree with them

• Too vague• Don’t hide behind vague statements (be clear

but concise)

• (Too much) Repetition / handwavy• Stay on point and back up arguments

• Unrealistic• Too much for 2-3 years.• This is more often the problem than «not

ambitious enough»

• this is postdoc training → not expected to cure cancer

• Running out of time• Sections (especially impact/implementation)

put together last-minute → it shows!

• Planning, internal deadlines, feedback!

Score (easy) extra points• Focus on Excellence! But.. 50% of the score is

Impact/Implication →Make sure to hit all the points here.. (easier than for excellence)

• Make it easy for the reviewer to «tick off», and hard to criticize/point out limitations• Stick to the structure → we are following the same guide

as you (same bullet points)

Score (easy) extra points• Clarity (again)!

• Evaluation is a step-wise process• Individual reports: may be a mix of positive and negative• But then comes the consensus report (~3 reviewers need to

agree). My experience: considerable disagreement 60-70% of the time

• The more objectively clear it seems that you satisfy each sub-criterion, the easier it is for the positive side to win the argument…

• …and the more unclear/unstructured, the easier for the negative side to win

Keep in mind the overall picture

• Once you’ve convinced us that this is innovative/novel and should have been done yesterday (Excellence 1.1), you need to show us why and how1. this is the correct, sensible, and most effective approach

a) Bonus point: explain why any (obvious) alternative approaches won’t work → wards off this kind of criticism, supports the viability of the project, and portrays you as knowledgeable, careful, and thorough

2. you are the perfect person to do this, and it needs to be done at the host lab/institution

3. how this will be a gamechanger for your career

Some specifics on each section

Excellence

• Most proposals able to pull off state-of-the-art

• Most common mistakes• Objectives/aims too vague• Lack of clear link between objectives/approach and the

stated problem• Methodology/approach insufficiently clear/detailed (but

avoid going into the weeds)

• Other (less common) mistakes• Not original/innovative/ambitious enough → if

reviewers are in the immediate field• Gender issues/interdisciplinarity not addressed

Impact

• Common mistakes• Future career prospects: Repetition of Excellence 1.4

(reinforcing maturity/independence during the fellowship) → try to separate the two..

• Dissemination/communication plantoo vague/generic• relatively little effort needed to satisfy

these sub-criteria (but be realistic),but often appears as an after-thought

Implementation

• Work plan and Gantt plots• Reviewers often tired at this point..

• Spend some extra effort making this clear, concise and straight-forward

• Get feedback from people outside your immediate field!

• Risks• Important: Identifying risks

• More important: Risk mitigation strategies!

• Be careful! Don’t highlight high riskswithout satisfying ways to address them

Final thoughts

• Planning → You can’t start writing early enough..• Grant writing never wasted →

recycle for future grants/papers →“grantsmanship” is a craft which gets better with practice

• Set (and keep) internal deadlines

• Finish drafts in time to get feedback• Individual sections if entire draft is

not ready

Thanks for the attention!