Marie Curie
Fellowships
Application Workshop
12th July 2010
Programme










Welcome & Introduction
Structure of Fellowship Proposal
Part B: examples, assessors’ comments
Success stories
EPSS system
Referees
Proposal coordinator/scientist in charge
Evaluation process
Final Hints & Tips
Q&A
Your project
Tell us…..
– Who you are
– Your organisation
– Your project
Marie Curie Fellowships
in a nutshell
 FP7 is designed to achieve the Lisbon and


Barcelona objectives and complement
activities in Member States.
Support to the European Research Area
Administered by the Department for
Education and Culture.
Objectives and Policy
Context




Make Europe more attractive to researchers
Encouraging transnational and intersectoral
mobility to create a European labour market
for researchers
Encouraging people to become researchers
Attract researchers to Europe
Individual
Fellowships





Aimed at Experienced Researchers
Focus on skills diversification and
knowledge sharing
Three categories: IEF, IIF & IOF
Fellow can apply for one fellowship
per call.
Host can host as many fellows as
they want.
Individual
Fellowships - Part B






Cover Page, Table of Contents
S & T Quality
Training/Transfer of Knowledge
Researcher
Implementation
Impact
Evaluation criterion:
Scientific / tech.
quality






Interdisciplinary/mulitidisciplinary
aspects
Research methodology
Originality/Innovation
Timeliness/Relevance
Host scientific expertise
Quality of the group/supervisor
3/5
25%
Assessor Comments
S&T Quality
Positive Feedback
Research is timely with number of
innovations beyond „state of the art‟
Research methodology is detailed and clearly
explained
Negative Feedback
The techniques to be used are well known in
the field so not very innovative
Research methodology not given in full detail
Training – IEF/IOF



Clarity and quality of the training
Relevance and quality of
additional scientific training
Host expertise in training
Your opportunity to make a difference!
3/5
15%
Assessor Comments
Training
Negative Feedback
A research project with no training element
The host asserts skills without presenting
convincing evidence of competence (your
examples?)
The range of techniques described would
clearly be valuable to the researcher, but the
lack of detailed description does not inspire
confidence in the quality of training available
Assessor Comments
Training
Positive feedback
Contemplates training courses specifically
designed for postdoctoral fellows
Research training objectives are clearly
identified, described, and planned
Both participants will benefit from their
mutual collaboration, not only through direct
joint work, but also through the interaction
with the whole research group
Transfer of
Knowledge - IEF


Transferring knowledge to European
host and/or bringing knowledge to
Europe
Clarity and quality of the transfer of
knowledge objectives
No threshold
15%
Assessor Comments
Transfer of Knowledge
Positive feedback
Fellow has range of relevant
knowledge and expertise to be
brought to the project
Negative feedback
Objective are research objectives with
out specifying the unique knowledge
the fellow will bring
Researcher





Research experience
Patents/publications/teaching
Independent thinking and leadership
(ability to transfer knowledge for IIF)
Match between profile and project
Potential – IOF, IEF (acquire new
knowledge, promotion)
4/5
25%
Points to consider





Relevant industrial experience
Generic skills base (your
examples)
Tangible impact on other research
Triggered new research (your
examples)
Referees
Assessor Comments
Researcher (1)
Negative Feedback
CV lacks data on record
Continuation of previous research so
exposure to new approaches is lacking
References were similar and from one
institution
Assessor Comments
Researcher (2)
Positive feedback
Clear proof of independent thinking during
PhD and the possibility to progress and
develop
Clear evidence of leadership qualities
Potential to acquire new knowledge is high
Good references and clear list of Prizes,
Awards, Lectures, etc
Implementation




Quality of infrastructure/facilities
Practical arrangements
Feasibility and credibility of project
Practical and administrative
arrangements
No threshold
15%
Points to consider



Include work plan and milestones
Support to fellow in moving to the
foreign country (visas, language
courses, your examples)
Host infrastructure and access
Many applications are scored down on
this sub-criteria!
Assessor Comments
Implementation (1)
Negative Feedback
Practical arrangements for
management, administration, and
support for hosting the fellow are not
well described
The amount of work and timeline may
be too ambitious
Assessor Comments
Implementation (2)
Positive Feedback
The facilities of the host are
appropriate for the research project
The research activities, milestones,
foreseen deliverables and schedule is
very comprehensive, well described
and appropriate
Impact





Potential of acquiring competencies during
the fellowship
Contribution to career development
Contribution to European excellence and
competitiveness
Benefit to European Research Area
Potential for long term collaboration between
EU and other countries (IOF/IIF)
3.5/5
20%
Tips



IEF – application in the industry
Links between research and
industry
Look at policy documents per
area of research
Assessor Comments
Impact
Positive Feedback
Contribution to European excellence and
competitiveness is well presented
Skill acquired during the project will greatly
contribute to the fellow‟s career
development
Negative Feedback
Lack of career development plan for the
applicant
Lack of details means it is difficult to judge
whether a independent position is achievable
Questions?
Dr Graeme Hayes
School of Languages and Social Sciences
Aston University






Two-year Intra-European Fellowship
Centre de recherches sur l’action politique en Europe, IEP de
Rennes, France
Social science, non-laboratory
Opposition to nuclear power in the 1970s/80s and now: changing
institutions, discourses, strategies
Relationship between public policy and civil society
Starts September 2010







Initial contact with partner over possibility of project, November
2008
AWM Travel Grant to support FP7 proposals, June 2009
Completed application July, submitted August
Notification of evaluation results, end November 2009
Invitation to Negotiate, 22 December 2009
Grant Agreement Preparation form submitted by Host, February
2010
Commission has not yet issued a contract…

Score out of 5 issued for each section
Criterion 3. RESEARCHER (award) (Threshold 4.00/5.00)
Mark: 4.80 Weight: 0.25
- The applicant has already a good research experience in the field of this
project.
- There is a good match between his profile and the project.
- The positions of editor, chair or convenor in various of the fellow’s research
initiatives demonstrate good leadership qualities.
- The professional maturity of the applicant is evident.
Weaknesses of the proposal
- The publication is unconvincingly presented.
Score out of 5 issued for each section


Strengths and weaknesses clearly listed
575 out of 1857 eligible projects to be funded…











Follow the guidelines
Write as if for a en educated/interested broadsheet reader
Use bullet points / indenting, etc.
Importance of fit between researcher and host, project and place
The project is important
The information you need may not be provided the way you need
it by your partner
You can’t rely on your partner to do the work
The process is lengthy and time consuming
Use existing documentation sources for the tricky bits (impact,
ethics)
Contact your referees early
Get your colleagues to read it through for you





B1: Link context to project to analysis to outcomes
Demonstrate the wider transferable interest of your project
Give condensed (300 word) biographies of your partners
B3: Values are more important than lists of achievements
B4: Set out the workplan graphically; link skills acquisition to
objectives to outcomes



Total value of the award is €222,047.20
Of which the host institution receives €17,539.20 for overheads
The money does not go through my institution’s books!
International Incoming
Fellowship (IIF)
SHIRMAN
Ecology and Evolution of SHIfting Range MArgiNs in
Glacier-fed Streams
Glacier-fed streams provide an ideal ecological
observatory for monitoring the dynamics of the
leading edges of shifting ranges as glaciers rapidly
recede and make available new stream habitat.
The main objective of the proposed research is to use
a novel blend of evolutionary and ecological tools to
evaluate key influences on the shifting locations of
range margins in glacier-fed streams.
A secondary objective is to infer the outcome of
upward range shifts on regional-scale patterns of
stream biodiversity.
Evaluation
Criterion
S&T Quality
Weighting (%)
25
Threshold
Score out of 5
3
Transfer of
Knowledge
Researcher
15
N/A
25
4
Implementation
15
N/A
Impact
20
N/A
Criterion 3 - Research experience
1. Research results including patents, publications,
teaching etc
2. Independent thinking and leadership qualities, and
capacity to transfer knowledge
3. Match between the proposed fellow's profile and project
Ten papers published or in press
Two previous postdoc appointments – 1 in Oregon
(2006-2008) and 1 in Zurich (2008-2009).
Eight fellowships and awards
Extensive teaching experience and supervised 7
undergraduate projects.
15 presentations at national/international meetings and
11 invited seminars.
Reviewing and extensive committee membership
The applicant has a broad range of experience in both ecological and
evolutionary methodologies, creative study design and implementation
in the field and laboratory, and successful scientific collaborations
with many international colleagues and has had two postdoctoral
positions.
Her research results have been published in peer-reviewed journals.
All records show that her skills and experience are well suited for the
proposed project.
Independent thinking and leadership potential demonstrated.
Good match between profile and potential.
OVERALL COMMENT - A very good candidate who shows potential as
future research leader –
SCORE - 4.8 out of 5.0
- WEIGHT 25% = 24
Criterion 1 - Scientific/technological quality,
including any interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal.
1. - Research
methodology
2. - Originality and innovative nature of the project,
and relationship to the 'state of the art' of
research in the field
3. - Timeliness and relevance of the project
4. - Host scientific expertise in the field
5. - Quality of the group/researchers in charge
Strengths of the proposal
Very well presented proposal with a clear overarching
objective to link two major approaches – one
evolutionary and one ecosystem-based – in order to
provide a synthetic understanding of the dynamics of
shifting range margins within a glacier-fed stream
system.
Very good planned methodology and very timely
given the climate change debate and range shifts.
The host institution is particularly strong in the
physical, chemical and biological sciences (We talked
about conferences hosted etc.).
The researcher in charge is a renowned scientist with
proven record of publications and citations.
Weaknesses of the proposal
The amount of work and the project length
may be a problem
OVERALL COMMENT
Very good and interesting proposal, likely to
be successful
Score 4.6 out of 5 – Weight: 25% = 23
Criterion 2 – Transfer of Knowledge
1. Potential of transferring knowledge to European
host and/or bring knowledge to Europe –
2. Clarity and quality of the transfer of knowledge
objectives
Strengths of the proposal:
Her background in research and experience with
different methods and tools will be an asset.
Applicant’s expertise in developing novel solutions
to ecological questions, allows strong potential for
knowledge transfer at many levels.
Overall comments:
The strong application gives the idea that the
applicant is strongly motivated and is likely to
achieve a substantial knowledge transfer.
Overall Score = 4.7 out of 5 Weight: 15% = 14.1
Criterion 4 - Implementation
1. Quality of infrastructure / facilities and International
collaborations of host 2. Practical arrangements for the implementation and
management of the scientific project.
3. Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work
plan - Practical and administrative arrangements, and
support for the hosting of the fellow
Detailed description of the host infrastructure and its
international cooperation.
A clear work plan is presented. Expected indirect
(apart from papers) products of the research have
been specified.
All facilities will be provided.
Weaknesses: The part of practical arrangements for
the implementation and management of the scientific
project lacks some detail.
Overall comments: Generally very good to excellent.
Score 4.6 out of 5. Weight: 15% = 13.8
Criterion 5 - Impact
1. Potential for creating long term collaborations
and mutually beneficial co-operation between
Europe and the third country.
2. Contribution to European excellence and
European Competitiveness.
3. Contribution to the socio-economic
development of the Developing Countries or
emerging and transition economies by
transfer of knowledge and human capacity
building (where relevant)
4. Benefit of the mobility to the European
research area
Strengths of the proposal:
The fellow has demonstrated capabilities in this field,
thus it is expected that long-term cooperation will be set
up.
The project could stimulate research in other types of
ecological systems, which could contribute to European
excellence and European competitiveness.
Weaknesses:
The part about benefit of the mobility to the European
research area needs more detail.
Score 4.5 out of 5. Weighting 20% = 18
Overall Score = 92.9 / 100 (Threshold 70)
Main points re success?
Summary
Identification of a very strong candidate.
Funds from Advantage West Midlands to meet Deb and
complete proposal.
Xavier Rodde (Research Support & EU/international research funding)
Development of novel methods
Strong development of home institution as base for IIF
Collaboration and international links particularly for future
Knowledge transfer and impact
Marie Curie
Submission and
Evaluation
12th July 2010
Stuart Russon
EU Funding Advisor
Submission and
evaluation




EPSS system
Referees
Proposal coordinator/scientist in
charge
Evaluation process
EPSS
..... or Electronic Proposal
Submission Service
 Proposals must be submitted
electronically using EPSS
 Proposals arriving by any other
means will not be evaluated
Use of the
EPSS system
 Only one login and password is provided
 Proposal to be completed by the ‘proposal
coordinator’
 The experienced researcher should register as
the proposal coordinator
EPSS – role of the
Proposal Coordinator






Register your organisation’s interest
Complete Part A of the proposal
Download the document template for writing
Part B
Upload the completed Part B
Submit the complete proposal Part A and Part
B
Nominate referees
Accessing EPSS


Access EPSS from the call page
http://www.epss-fp7.org/epss
The EPSS Preparation and
Submission Guide is available at
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/epss_e
n.html

Submit early and often
Referees




Up to 3 referees can be
nominated
Proposal coordinator nominates
referee
Provide referees before deadline
Referee issued with login and
password
Proposal
Coordinator
The proposal coordinator is the
single point of contact between
participants and the REA
Before the call deadline the
experienced researcher is
considered ‘proposal coordinator’
Scientist in
Charge




The scientist team leader located at
host organisation
Will supervise the researcher during
the project
After the call deadline the scientist in
charge will be the only single contact
point.
Experienced researcher and
scientist in charge cannot be the
same person
Evaluation
process
Evaluation

Assessed by at least 3 experts

Overall threshold is 70%

Do not exceed page limits

Do not make any assumptions
Final checks



Check eligibility
Correct font size and page
limitations
The deadline is important!
Timetable






Deadline for submission of proposals 17 August
2010 at 17.00.00 Brussels local time
Evaluation of proposals 04-29 October 2010
Evaluation Summary Reports sent to proposal
coordinators End of November 2010
Invitation letter to successful coordinators to launch
grant agreement negotiations with the REA services
December 2010
Letter to unsuccessful applicants From December
2010
Signature of first grant agreements From March
2011
Hints and
tips!








Have clear aims and objectives
Good rationale
What you want to do, with whom and why?
European added-value
Must relate to FP7 objectives and priorities
Communicate clearly in the application form – keep it
simple
Management and Monitoring
Impact and benefits
Descargar

EU Connects General - West Midlands Employers