ERC-StG_CoG-_2021.ppt

EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL
STARTING AND CONSOLIDATOR GRANTS
Ben Williams (Ext 34934)
B.A.Williams@leeds.ac.uk

RIS EU Team
• Part of Research and Innovation Service
• Providing a focus for the University's co-..operation
activities at a European level in the ..fields of
research and training at pre and post award
• Support for staff wishing to engage in European
..activities
• Bespoke support for 6 key schemes, including ERC
• Authorised signatories for all applications for
.European funding from Leeds

AIMS OF THE SESSION
• to enable candidates to compare their profile
against the set ERC benchmarks and
previous successful applicants;
• to formulate your project idea in the correct
style;
• to understand the review process
• to understand the application process
• to find out more about support available

UK PARTICIPATION POST-BREXIT
• UK-EU Trade And Cooperation Agreement (Brexit deal)
allows the UK to become an Associated Country
• This means access to Horizon Europe on the same
terms as a Member State
Key message 1: Business as usual for EU R&I Funding
• Terms of association already agreed in Brexit Deal
Protocol 1, so association is a formality – just due legal
process
• Association only needs to be finalised at point of GA
signature for first awards – early 2022
Key message 2: UK will not miss any Horizon Europe
calls

WHAT IS THE ERC?
• Part of Horizon Europe Pillar 1  Excellent Science
• €16 billion over 2021-2027 (22% increase from
H2020)
• Supports the best “Independent Investigators” in
Europe
• Supports “Frontier Research”

WHAT DOES ‘INDEPENDENT’
MEAN?
• Manage your own research group as PI
• Apply for funding independently
• Publish independently as lead author
• Supervise PDRAs and Ph.D. students

WHAT DOES ‘FRONTIER’ MEAN?
• “the pursuit of questions at or beyond the
frontiers of knowledge, without regard for
established disciplinary boundaries
• High risk/high gain profile - "... if
successful, the payoffs will be very
significant, but there is a higher-than-normal
risk that the research project does not
entirely fulfil its aims..."

STRUCTURE OF THE ERC
• Scientific Council: independent scientists
acting in their personal capacity
• Executive Agency (REA): documentation,
grant agreements, guidelines
• Selected Review Panels and external
referees

OBJECTIVES
• To support investigator-led projects at or beyond
the frontiers of knowledge
• To fund projects with significant impact but not
linked to commercial objectives
• To improve the attractiveness of Europe for the best
researchers from both European and third countries,
as well as for industrial research investment
• ERC buzz phrases:
– Step change / frontier / ground-breaking
research
– Novelty, unconventional approach
– High-risk, high-reward

ELIGIBILITY
• Starter: Ph.D. Obtained 2 to 7 years as of 1st
January 2021
• Consolidator: Ph.D. Obtained 7 to 12 years as of 1st
January 2021
• Must carry out at least 50% research in an EU
Member or Associated State
• Note Ph.D. equivalents and MDs
Deadline Call Year Eligibility Cut-off
StG – 8th April 2021 2021
1st Jan 2021
CoG 20th April 2021 2021
Potentially…….
StG – Nov 2021 2022 1st Jan 2022

EXTENSION TO TIME PERIOD
Extensions for career breaks, with justifying
documentation
Before or after Ph.D.
• Maternity – 18 months per child
• Paternity – actual time taken
After Ph.D.
• Long term illness (over 90 days for PI or close family
member)
• Military service
• Clinical training
NB: No longer a maximum length of extension

WHO MAKES A SUITABLE
CANDIDATE?

StG MOCK PROFILE 1
Starter (4yrs) PE Funded
• 12 Publications
• 3 book chapters
• Membership of 5 field-specific groups
• Supervised 1 Ph.D. and 2 M.Phys. students
• 10 invited presentations
• No research income but Co-I on £1million EPSRC
bid

StG MOCK PROFILE 2
Starter (4.5yrs) LS Stage 2
• 28 Publications, 215 citations
• Supervised 10 Ph.D. students
• Previous holder of competitive fellowship
• Led major part of a large (€700k) proposal

StG MOCK PROFILE 3
Starter (7 yrs) SH Stage 2
• 10 Publications, 7 in journals, 2 books, 1 monograph
• Supervised 10 Ph.D./M.Sc/B.Sc. students
• Editor of Journal
• €200k research income
• Organised a conference

CoG MOCK PROFILE 1
PE Panel 8 years post-PhD
• 41 Publications, >200 citations
• Supervised 3 Ph.D. students and 1 PDRA
• c.€1.5 million research income
• Member of 4 field-relevant societies
• Associate Editor of journal
• Frequent reviewer of grants & papers
• Media work

CoG MOCK PROFILE 2
LS Panel 10 years post-Ph.D.
• 40 Publications, >600 citations
• Supervised 5 Ph.D. students and 4 PDRAs
• Previous fellowship holder
• 14 invited international presentations
• ‘Young Investigator’ Award

CoG MOCK PROFILE 3
SH Panel 7 years post-Ph.D.
• 24 publications, 22 as sole author
• >€325,000 research income as PI
• 20 invited conference presentations
• 3 Editorial Board memberships
• Supervised 4 Ph.D. students
• 2 funded applications for research leave

ERC PI
• Leads a research team
• Project is your vision – team put in place to
achieve your vision
• No “Co-Investigators”
• No “Collaborators”
• Manages aspects of project (staff/student
supervision, finances, work plan)
• Must commit min. 50% (StG) /40% (CoG)
time to the grant each year

THE TEAM CONCEPT
• PDRAs/Ph.D. students
• Academic staff
• Technical staff
• ‘Remote’ team members allowed if justified
• Any nationality
• No general admin staff

GRANT VALUE (StG)
• 100% of eligible costs + 25% flat rate indirect
costs
StG CoG
€1.5m over 5 years pro rata €2m over 5 years pro rata
Up to €2.5m if: Up to €3m if:
• Moving from outside the EU
• Large equipment required
• Substantial facilities access required

REAPPLICATION RULES &
MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS
General:
• Only 1 ERC grant managed by the PI active at any
one time
• No PI or Co-I may be associated with more than 1
application during the same calendar year (including
ERC Synergy Grant)
Specific to H2020
• Restrictions on resubmission: If score ‘B’ or ‘C’ then
cannot apply for next 1 or 2 calls respectively
• Anyone reaching Stage 2 can reapply the next year

APPLYING IN 2021
• Unique year – first calls of Horizon Europe and
released before the Programme has even been
established
• Justified as process is “similar to H2020”
• Completely disregards lack of preparation time due to
COVID and personal situations
• Short deadline might mean:
– Apply if in last year of eligibility
– Apply if you have the time to put in a proposal that you
are happy with
– Don’t apply if a rushed proposal might result in
exclusion from 2022/23 call(s), especially if out of
eligibility range
– Success rates better in 2021

SUB-PANELS
• 27 panels with keywords, see ERC Work
Programme pp 47-49 (handout to follow):
»PE – 11 sub-panels
»LS – 9 sub-panels
»SH – 7 Sub-panels
• >320 panel descriptors, so all subjects
covered
• Main panel budget split by sub-panel
according to no. applications to that sub-panel

PANEL BUDGET BREAKDOWN
• StG - €619 million total (c.413 proposals)
• CoG - €633 million total (c.317 proposals)
• Budget split relative to number of proposals
submitted to each of 3 main panels:
• Physical Sciences and Engineering (PE)
• Life Sciences (LS)
• Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities (SH)

THE IMPORTANCE OF CHOOSING
YOUR SUB-PANEL
• To which field are you aiming the project?
• Who do you want to evaluate the project?
• Who is on the panel?
• Interdisciplinary – can choose a secondary
panel (but should you….?)
• If ERC disagrees with your choice, they can
change it!

APPLICATION FORM STRUCTURE
3 sections: Part A, Part B1 and Part B2
Part A: Admin forms (directly on-line):
• Proposal and PI info + abstract (2000
characters)
• Host info
• Budget total

PART B1
Short proposal – MS Word templates,
submitted as .pdf
– Cover page and project summary (=
abstract)
– Section 1a: Extended Synopsis (5 pages
excl. references)
– Section 1b-c: the PI
• 1b CV + funding ID (2 pages + Annex)
• 1c 10-year Track Record (2 pages)

PART B2
Full proposal: MS Word templates, submitted
as .pdf
– Scientific Proposal (15 pages, excluding
references)
• State of the art, objectives
• Methodology
• Resources , project costs

ANNEXES
Uploaded as .pdf files:
– Letter of commitment from Leeds, signed by
DVC; Research & Innovation
– Ethical issues supporting information
(permissions/ protocols/ template forms)
– Documents proving extension eligibility
– Letters of support NOT permitted

Submission
– Online via Participant Portal
– Templates for Parts B1 and B2
– Part A consists of online forms
– Parts B1 and B2 are uploaded as .pdf files
– Annexes attached as .pdf files
– Find the call here

Register on ECAS
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/cas/eim/external/register.cgi

Set up ERC submission account
– PIC number 999975426
– Need title and abstract to setup account.
NB: Not final.
– Go through steps, accept all conditions
– Add me to the proposal as “Institutional
contact”
» Ben Williams, B.A.Williams@leeds.ac.uk
– EU Team can do this for you

PROPOSAL EVALUATION
a) FULL proposal is submitted at deadline:
Part A
Part B1
Part B2
b) Evaluation in 2 stages:
Step 1: B1 is assessed
Panels will retain between 2.5 - 3 times the amount
of bids to be funded
Step 2: B2 assessed
Also Interview in Brussels for all candidates

Remote Reading of B1 and
Assessment
by Panel Members
Panel Meetings and Ranking
Proposal
rejected
STEP 2 - Evaluation
Panel Meetings
Domain Panel Chairs
ranking and selection per
Domain
Proposals
Selected
Reading and Assessment
by Panel Members
and 4/5 Remote Evaluators
of B2 Full Proposal
+ Interview
STEP 1 - Evaluation
Eligibility Check
EVALUATION PROCESS
Evaluation Summary Report
Proposal Retained
for stage 2
Proposal
rejected
Ethical Review
Failure

WHO EVALUATES THE PROPOSAL
(STAGE 1)?
• 2 sets of panels for ERC, sitting alternate years
• Members only published after Stage 2 evaluations
completed
• 2019 list will be good representation of 2021 panellists
However…..
“any direct or indirect contact about the peer review evaluation
of an ERC call between an applicant legal entity or a PI
submitting a proposal on behalf of an applicant legal entity,
and any independent expert involved in the peer review
evaluation under the same call, in view of attempting to
influence the evaluation process, is strictly forbidden.”

• 3-5 panellists from chosen panel(s) review individually,
get together to form ranking list
• Panel Composition:
– 12-15 people per panel
– EU and international, almost exclusively academia
– Experts in the broad panel field
– Two sets of panellists who sit on panel alternate years
• List of panels in WP pp 47-49
(STAGE 1)?

(STAGE 2)?
• Stage 2 – stage 1 panellists plus 3-5 remote
evaluators specific to project – based on abstract and
keywords
• Can exclude up to 3 in Part A of proposal
• Cannot affect ability to evaluate proposal
• Information required:

EVALUATION GRADING
• A - of sufficient quality to be funded, regardless of
budget available;
• B - of high quality but not ranked high enough to be
considered for funding;
• C - is not of sufficient quality for the ERC
“B” or “C” classifications at Stage 1 come with a
restriction on resubmitting for the next 1 or 2 calls
respectively

SUCCESS RATES
Typically:
• 30% get through to Stage 2 from Stage 1
(range 23-36%)
• 40% funded from Stage 2
(range 35-50%)
• Overall around 12-14% success rate

SUCCESS RATES - StG
• 2014: €450m, 375 grants, 11.7% success rate

SUCCESS RATES - CoG
• 2014: €713m, 372 grants, 15% success rate

PROPOSAL WRITING – The PI
B1 (b) CV and (c) Track Record

PI AND TEAM CONCEPT
PI:
• Commit min. fte to project (50% / 40%), preferably
more
• Leads/directs project and manages funding
• Determines what skills and level of experience are
needed for team members, recruits and supervises
team members
Team Members:
• Work for the PI to complete his/her vision
• Can be named or recruited
• Can be based anywhere in the world (if justified)
• Of any nationality

B1(b) - CURRICULUM VITAE
• Academic / Employment record
• Research bio – matching expertise to proposal
• Research record:
» Previous Fellowships
» Prizes and awards
» Supervision of Ph.D.s / PDRAs
» Editorial Boards / expert advisory roles
» Institutional responsibilities
» Referee / Reviewer / external Ph.D
examiner / visiting scholarships
» Research Income
» Major International collaborations
» Media work
» Career breaks

B1(b) - CURRICULUM VITAE
• “Funding ID” :
» Mandatory but not part of 2-page limit
» Current research grants & submissions
pending
Multi-purpose :
» Track record of funding
» Check if similar bids submitted
» Check enough fte to do the project!

B1(c) –TRACK RECORD
• First section the evaluators look at
• Summary paragraph
» Total publications/ citations/ H-Index
» Describe method of identifying main author if not first author
» Source of citations / H-Index
• Up to 5 Publications as main author
» Include citations
» Mixture of top journals and well cited articles
» Journal impact factors
» Table format best
» If citations not relevant, demonstrate uptake of results

B1(c) TRACK RECORD
• Invited presentations to international conferences
• Research expeditions led
• Major contributions to early careers of excellent
researchers
• Examples of leadership in industrial innovation or
design
• Granted patents/Prizes/Awards
• Research projects (as PI / Co-I)
Anything that shows esteem, or makes you stand out
from your peers should be here

H-INDEX
• Useful measure for PE and LS panels
• Measure of quality varies from sub-panel to
sub-panel
• Regard the H-index with a healthy degree of
scepticism
• H-Index is looked at but not regarded as
definitive – can be offset with other measures
of esteem
• A strong project will not be compromised by a
lower H-Index

PROPOSAL WRITING – The Project
B1 (a) Synopsis and Part B2

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
SUMMARY
• Many proposals evaluated by panellists
• First thing read - largely determines if they want to
read B1 in more detail
• Must make them want to do this!
• Used to select reviewers who will evaluate B2 (along
with free keywords)
• ‘Sales pitch’ more than summary of project
• Include:
» The problem to be solved and why solve it?
» Relate to the bigger picture – e.g. cost/lives
saved/preservation of cultural heritage
» How you plan to tackle the problem

B1(a) – Project Synopsis
• Read by panel therefore not specialists in your area
• Purpose is to get them excited enough to put it
through to stage 2
• Part research proposal, part sales pitch
• If you write B2 first, B1 is NOT a straightforward
summary of B2

• Use “I” not “We”!
• Show knowledge of state of the art
You can’t define a step-change if the state of the art
isn’t clear
• Show that your research is ambitious
Articulate the step-change
• Show feasibility
What is the reason for thinking you can be successful?
Proof of principle? Data? Etc.
• Emphasise novelty
“The first study to…”, “An unconventional multidisciplinary
approach to…”, “A radical new approach to…”
• Address explicitly high risk, high reward and mitigation
High risk is essential – they are funding the potential of a
breakthrough. Risk is good if potential reward is high.

CONTRADICTIONS TO ADDRESS
• Ambition vs feasibility
• Demands on time vs commitment to project
• Inter/multi-disciplinarity vs PI skill-set
• High risk / high reward vs contingency

• X-ref B1 annotated template
• First paragraph – introduction (why an ERC project):
» What the problem is (include stats)
» Why it needs addressing now
» What the project will make possible (in the future)
» Why the approach is novel and ‘frontier’
• Background and state-of-the-art
» Demonstrate understanding
» Show advancement / gap filled
• Objectives and Methodology
» Relate the two
» Ambition versus feasibility
» Risk and contingency
• Beyond the project
• Risk vs Reward
• Brief costing info

Questions to Ask Yourself
• Why hasn’t it been done before?
• What excites me about this research?
• What makes me think this is a good idea?
• Who else could do it and why am I equally
or better placed to succeed?
• Why now?
• What longer-term challenge will my project
help to address?
• If I fail, what will we have still learned to
help future scholars?
• What is the highest (research) risk?
• What could become possible in 5 years
time that isn’t now?
NOVELTY
FEASIBILTY
IMPACT
HIGH
RISK /
REWARD

IMPACT IN ERC
You are not solving a specific problem in the project lifetime, you are
accelerating research understanding to allow a more complex problem,
driven by a wider global/societal issue, to be addressed in a shorter
timeline
Proposal Impact
Incremental research advancement
Year 1 Year 5
Standard EU Project
Proposal Impact
Step-change
to create new
baseline for
knowledge
Year 1 Year 5 Year ?
ERC Project

IMPACT IN ERC
• The ERC is only interested in the paradigm-shift in
research understanding at the end of the project
• The ERC is funding the potential for a research
breakthrough, not the expectation of one
• Societal / industrial impact only starts after the end
of the project

B2(a) – STATE-OF-THE-ART AND
OBJECTIVES
• Background (inc. research idea)
» State in one line what the project will do!
» Why important for the field
» Impact – new opportunities
» Challenging aspects
» Inter- / multidisciplinary approaches
• Current state-of-the-art
» What is currently known?
» What are the gaps in knowledge?
• Objectives
» Relate to state-of-the-art
» Suitably ambitious and novel or unconventional
» What new opportunities will arise?
» How are they challenging?

B2(b) – METHODOLOGY
• Relate to objectives and to state-of-the-art
• Highlight novel/unconventional aspects
• Comprehensive/appropriate methodology and use of
resources & infrastructure
• Convince evaluators that goals will be achieved within
project life and resources
• Work plan and intermediate goals - Gantt chart!
• High risk vs high gain
• Beyond the project – future application of research

Workstream 1 / Work Package 1 / Task 1
(state Objectives/Research Qs addressed)
Description of methodology…………………………
………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………….
highlight novelty etc. within text – e.g. this will be the
first study to…/ this addresses a major gap in our
knowledge etc.………………………………………… …..
……………………………………………………………
Etc. etc.
Then separate sections at end on ‘risk’ and ‘potential
beyond the project’

• Hypotheses to be tested
• Overview (summary of what WP will do and achieve)
Task 1.1 – Title – description
Task 1.2 – Title - description
Task 1.3 – Title - description
• Key intermediate goals
• Main novelties
• Risk and reward

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
• Scan of Ph.D. certificate
• Letter of Host Support
• Supporting evidence for ethical or
security issues
• Proof of extension to eligibility criteria

B1 vs B2
B1 B2
To general panel Peer review
Always reviewed Only reviewed if B1 good
PI / Project : 50/50 More emphasis on project
Emphasis on fit to ERC More analysis of methodological
approach
Needs to be excellent to get
through
Interview gives chance to pre-
empt and address concerns
May result in resubmission
restrictions
Resubmission possible (if still
eligible)

B2 - ETHICAL ISSUES
Check-list table mandatory in Part A
Check boxes where issues may be
relevant and give page number of
B2 where the related research first
arises
– If ticked ‘yes’ in any of the boxes in the Table, need to
complete description fields below table (description of issues,
compliance with regulations). If need more space, can upload
as annex
Failure to disclose ethical information can prevent
funding of an awarded project

B2 - SECURITY ISSUES
Check-list table mandatory in Part A

OPEN ACCESS - amended
• Beneficiaries are obliged to provide immediate open
access (without embargo period) to all peer-reviewed
publications related to results
• Eligible cost to grant if follows ERC OA rules – green
or gold route
• CC BY-NC / ND / NC-ND licence (or equivalent) is
acceptable for Monographs, CC BY (or equivalent)
licence for Articles or other publication types
• OAPEN Open Books library recommended as
repository for monographs and other books as well as
book chapters.

OPEN RESEARCH DATA
• Mandatory in Horizon Europe
• Be aware of how broad the definition of “data”
is
• Data management plan as a deliverable by
Month 6
• Include costs for open data in the costing
• Talk to Research Data Management Team in
library

RESEARCH INTEGRITY
• If an applicant submits a proposal which coincides,
fully or in essence, with a proposal made by another
applicant in the same or any other call, both the
ground-breaking nature of the project and the Principal
Investigator's capacity to carry it out may be seriously
called into question
• Plagiarism detection software may be used to analyse
proposals submitted to the ERC
• Search for previously-funded proposals before
applying
• Relates to knowledge of state-of-the-art in B1

% TIME TO COMMIT
- Starter: Min 50%
- Consolidator Min 40%
- Each year, not average over project and will be verified
by ERC!
- Preferably more as evaluators comment on PI’s
commitment
- Consider the funding ID section
- Consider your status:
- Starter: front-load fte e.g. 80% yr 1 down to 50% yr 5
- Consolidator: more consistent, e.g. 60% yr 1 down to 40% yr 5

FORMATTING
Presentation style and fonts for parts B1 and B2
- Header: PI NAME – ACRONYM – PART 1
- Times New Roman
- Font 11 minimum
- Single spacing
- Margins: 2 cm left/right, 1.5cm bottom
- All .pdf files must include acronym in the
name, e.g. PartB1_ACRONYM.pdf
- Footer: Page x of y
- B1 cover page

PROPOSAL WRITING FAQs
1. What about papers yet to be published?
Can include in Track record, not in top 5
2. I am busy, in year 1 so can only spend
20% of my time on the ERC project, can I
still apply? No!
3. I know who I want as team members, can I
name them? Yes, but still open recruitment
4. Do I have to carry out my research in the
EU? At least 50% based in EU MS/AC
5. Can I give web links to information about
my work? Can I do so in the synopsis?
Yes, but no obligation to look at them!
6. The proposal I saw had a section on….

CHANGES FROM OLDER
APPLICATIONS
Part A:
• Budget and description now located here
• Ethics checklist now located here
Part B1:
• No Scientific Leadership Profile
• References do not count towards page limits
• Funding ID is separate annex – not part of page limit
Part B2:
• No Host institution section
• No Resources section (now in Part A) and budget not
broken down by year/period
• No ethics section (now in Part A)
• References do not count towards page limits

Part A - Resources
Note that any discrepancies between costs in the table and
description in the narrative may result in budget reduction
• PI salary – should be Min 50% / 40% and all team member salaries
• All costs associated with and directly attributable to the project (e.g. equipment,
consumables, travel, open access publications and data etc.)
• If another institution involved, get their costs in advance
• Subcontracting needs to be included at application stage
• 25% flat rate indirect costs added to total of all direct costs (minus subcontracts)
• NOT fEC indirects/estates
Also Consider:
• Equipment and depreciation – purchase at start of project and can only recover
% use on project
• Ph.D. students – fees can be an issue for UK, usually OK at home rates….but EU
students no longer qualify for this

Part A - Resources
• Size and nature of team
» State PI commitment and justify
» Skills of named researchers
» Skills required from recruited personnel
» Remote team members and how you will manage them
• Justification of costs
» Equipment – short description of need and % use
» Existing resources
» Rough breakdown of travel costs for whole team
» Subcontracting to be justified
» Exceptional items to be justified
» Anything that qualifies for extra €1m allowance

1. Get colleague to read through to
check research excellence
2. EU Team can check Part A and B1,
also sanity-check for part B2
3. Candidate peer review
4. Letter of Host Support signed
5. Final check by EU Team
Internal Procedures

* Projects MUST start within 6 months of being awarded
Indicative Timetable
StG CoG
Deadline 8th April 2021 20th April 2021
Stage 1 Result 26th August 2021 22nd November
2021
Interview Late Sept / Oct
2021
February 2022
Stage 2 Result 20th December
2021
13th May 2022
Grant
Preparation
January 2022 May 2022
Start Date* April-June 2022 Sept-Nov 2022

KEY MESSAGES
• UK applicants are eligible and welcome to
apply
• Abstract is first impression of the project
• Track record is first impression of the PI
• Impact is solely on advancing research
knowledge
• No risk = no funding
• B1 and B2 read by a different audience at a
different time
• Funding potential, not guaranteed, success

Information to follow
• Slides and recording
• Panels
• Information for Applicants
• 2019 Panelists
• EU Team B1 templates
• Successful example
• Checklist

Useful contacts
• Any grant-holders you know
• Any former panellists you know
• Costings: Faculty R+I Office
• Open Access
• Data management
• UKRO – National Contact Point for
ERC: https://www.ukro.ac.uk/erc/
Library teams

ERC-StG_CoG-_2021.ppt

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to ERC-StG_CoG-_2021.ppt

Similar to ERC-StG_CoG-_2021.ppt (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ERC-StG_CoG-_2021.ppt