Our view on Marie Curie Grants and how to be competitive. Workshop on how to prepare a MSCA Individual Fellowship proposal, UPF, 26/06/14 with Regina López.

1. Marie Skłodowska-Curie
Individual Fellowships Workshop
Regina López & Aurelio Ruiz
26 June 2014

2. Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual fellowships
in a nutshell

3. Objective: increase the creativity and innovative
potential of experienced researchers from any
discipline, emphasising mobility
Scope:
• Individual and transnational actions that are awarded
to the best researchers or those who are the most
promising
• Focused on career development, not on experience
• Bottom-up approach
Expected impact: extracting the full potential from
researchers and achieve a significant leap in their
careers

4. What do Marie Skłodowska-Curie IF Grants offer?
-Your salary during 2-3 years (at competitive fixed rates,
depending on country and personal situation)
- Flat rate on research costs
- Administrative costs for the institutions
- Global Fellowships: return to host during 1 year
… In return to fierce competition!

5. To whom?
Postdocs (with minor exceptions):
- Any career stage (from recent PhD holders to senior members)
- Any contractual situation (tenured, postdocs, unemployed, returning from breaks)
Who are you competing with?:
- With your peers at similar career stage
- Note that really outstanding researchers tend not to apply to MC
(they already have secured funding/ job offers)
- Note that there is a requirement on mobility
Who is required:
- The applicant
- A researcher in charge
- A Host Organisation (+ partner organizations for secondments)

6. Important: Mobility Rule
→ The researcher must not have resided or carried out
his/her main activity in the country of the host
organisation for more than 12 months in the 3 years
immediately prior to the deadline for submission of
proposals.

7. Types of Marie Skłodowska-Curie IF Grants
1. European Fellowships (EFs)
• 1.1. Standard European Fellowships
• 1.2. Career Restart Panel (CAR)
• 1.3. Reintegration Panel (RI)
2. Global Fellowships (GFs)
Which type depends on:
- Where you are
- Where you want to go to

8. Types of Marie Skłodowska-Curie IF Grants
1.1. Standard European
Fellowships
(12-24 months)
2. Global Fellowships
(12-36 months)
From any country
to EU / Associated Country
From EU /AC
to TC (non-EU) and back!
From TC (non-EU)
to EU/AC
1.2. Career Restart Panel
(CAR)
1.3. Reintegration panel (RI)
1. From any country
to EU / Associated Country
2. Career break in research
of at least 12 months prior
to deadline

9. Types of Marie Skłodowska-Curie IF Grants

10. Yes we can
MC2013: Eight Marie Curie grants awarded to UPF
http://www.upf.edu/icaria-cei/en/news/0342.html
MC2012: Seven Marie Curie grants awarded to UPF
http://www.upf.edu/enoticies-recerca/1213/0227.html
MC2011: Three Marie Curie grants awarded to UPF
http://www.upf.edu/enoticies/es/1213/1225.html#.U5sVUvl_tFc
DTIC: 6
DHUM: 3
DECON: 3
DTCL: 2
DCOM: 1
DCPS: 2
DDRET: 1
… that’s why we come to the DCEXS!

11. What you have to do
1. Part A: Administrative forms (contact us for it)
2. Part B: Technical annex
1. SUMMARY
2. EXCELLENCE
3. IMPACT
4. IMPLEMENTATION
5. CV OF THE EXPERIENCED RESEARCHER
6. CAPACITIES OF THE PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS
7. ETHICAL ASPECTS
8. LETTERS OF COMMITMENT OF PARTNER ORGANISATIONS
1-4 max 10
pages
See template here
http://www.upf.edu/rdi/programes_europeus/MSCAworkshop/index.html
Deadline: Sept 11th 2014

12. Part A of the proposal

13. Part A of the proposal

14. Part A of the proposal

15. A communication activity
Objective(s) MessageTarget
audience
My proposal is funded 
My proposal obtains the
highest score against
the evaluation criteria
Reviewers
(SCIENTISTS)
My project is the one
that best addresses the
evaluation criteria
against the competitors
1 - Understand MC rationale, the
evaluation criteria, and build your
proposal around them
3 - Be empathetic with the
reviewer
2 - Understand yourself, and
your potential competitors
Tools
Proposal (no later
clarification)
Perhaps without any
look at additional
information (but perhaps
they do! Right time to
update web?)

16. 1 - Rationale for MC grants
“diversify their individual
competence in terms of
skill acquisition through
advanced training,
international and inter-
sectoral mobility. ”
(or restart careers)
Desired future CV /
competences
Training plan
-Technical skills
- Non-technical skills
Research project
Training objetives
In the ideal place to
-Succeed in research project
- Succeed in acquiring targeted training

17. 1 - Rationale for MC grants
Evaluation criteria
This is one of the very first things you need to look and understand before
writing the proposal!
Evaluators will be requested to assess and justify the mark in the light of
the evaluation criteria
- If you do not address (sufficiently) the issues raised by the evaluation
criteria, you may not obtain any mark in that criteria
- Be factual and detailed. Generic (but empty) statements are the most
typical failure

18. 1 - Rationale for MC grants - evaluation
Research quality
The researcher's career prospects
Support offered by the host
organisation

19. 2 - Relevance of assessment
We are judged by what we finish, not
by what we start.
Think about results, not tasks
We are judged by what we achieve,
not by what we do
Think about impact, not just
publications
Own assessment
All profiles in research are very qualified
In terms of fundraising / career plans, absolute assessment is not useful  Relative to
competitors (not just from my field!)
What is special in our CV / project with respect to equivalent peers?

20. 2 – Addressing evaluation criteria
Training Objectives
TO1
TO2
TO3
TON
Scientific Objectives
O1
O2
O3
ON
Tasks
T1
T2
T3
TN
Host / Supervisor
Quality and
Adequacy
Specific actions
-Projects
-Formal training activities
- Mentoring, supervision
- Support to get
integrated in the research
environment
Implementation: How they relate
Credible that you can start from Day 1 (scientific and non-scientific issues)
Impact

21. 2 – Addressing evaluation criteria
Q1. Experiment 1. ….
MONTHS SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE TRAINING OBJECTIVE
01 - 08
To demonstrate that … (a) To obtain deep knowledge on the
theoretical debate of… (b) To get
familiarized with the classical functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
techniques with the support of a post-
doctoral fellow expert in these
techniques.
Q1. Experiment 2. ….
MONTHS SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE TRAINING OBJECTIVE
09- 16
To determine whether (a) To learn defending a theoretical
position through; (b) To get introduced
into a new fMRI technique, namely…
Q2. Experiment 3. ….
MONTHS SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE TRAINING OBJECTIVE
17 - 24
To determine whether abstract
representations of action ….
(a) To obtain deep knowledge of …; (b) …

22. 3 - Evaluators
Selection of evaluators
• General Public: When talking to a general journal, ...
• Cultivated Public: When talking to specialised but generic media, when talking to
researchers in other fields not close to mine, ...
• Very informed “Peer”: When talking to somebody from my field, familiar with the
issue but not a full expert
• Experts, peers
Evaluators in Calls often fall in this area (availability, conflicts of
interest, etc)

23. 3 - Evaluators
Selection of evaluators
You can slightly influence the type of evaluator beforehand, be conservative
when:
• Choosing specific keywords / too specific abstract
Avoid mentioning all the areas which are partially relevant.
Avoid using ambiguous / open terms
• Choosing the right evaluation panels
 If you do not clearly belong to one, choose the one which can best
appreciate both your CV and the project
Interdisciplinarity (no matter what most calls say) is very difficult to
evaluate. Only go to interdisciplinar when it is really adequate!
• Recommendation: think of 3-4 persons who would be the excellent
evaluators for your proposal
• What keywords do they use to define themselves?

24. 3 - Evaluators
Think of your “client”: The evaluator
Empathy
“the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it
would be like to be in their situation ”
• Evaluation may not take place in ideal conditions
• Busy people, may get interrupted while doing it
• Need to evaluate many proposals, all dealing with similar issues
• Need to provide feedback following given evaluation criteria (not free
opinion)
• Need to evaluate what is written in the proposal (no chance for interaction,
clarification, etc)

25. 3 - Evaluators
Satisfy their needs!
• Evaluate with minimum effort and maximum accuracy, in the form most
appreciated by them. Imagine you are the evaluator
Minimum effort (easy to read, follow and assess against the criteria)
• Clear structure that logically “unfolds” as proposal develops (logical framework!)
• a ppt before starting to write often helps, to identify the main aspects and
elaborate the discourse
• Early exposing to colleagues also helps: it is more difficult to explain something
without logical order, than to write it
• Repetition and consistency in the wording
• Summary diagrams and tables BEFORE long explanations, so that it does not
require effort to picture it up in mind when reading

26. 3 - Evaluators
Maximum accuracy (easy to provide feedback) – Be concise, factual and exhaustive
• Facts and external references supporting your statement instead of opinions
• Often using the funding agency references is useful
• Be concise: Avoid open / empty statements. Go to the point
• Template is repetitive  Be repetitive (or refer to the place where you elaborate on the
topic)
Quick exercise
Facts: Take a look at the information you are producing
Can you identify statements not supported by facts? (important at this stage not to have
them included, but that you know what fact would support it, and where to get it?)
This includes also your CV: double check if every statement about you could be proved
and checked by an external observer
Take a look at the overall template before starting to write

27. 3 - Evaluators
In the form most appreciated by scientists
Evaluators are also scientists!
• Elegant and minimal solutions are much appreciated
• Send something (and in the form) you think you would appreciate if you were the
evaluator
• A project should revolve around a clear, simple idea
The objective of this project is to develop image processing algorithms for cinema
that allow people watching a movie on a screen to see the same details and
colors as people at the shooting location can.

28. Q&As
Thank you

29. UPF RESEARCH SERVICE
WE ARE AT YOUR DISPOSAL!
projectes.recerca@upf.edu