Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships Workshop

Regina López & Aurelio Ruiz 26 June 2014

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual fellowships

in a nutshell

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

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!

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)

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.

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

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

Types of Marie Skłodowska-Curie IF Grants

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!

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

Part A of the proposal

Part A of the proposal

Part A of the proposal

A communication activity

Objective(s) Message Target 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?)

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

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

1 - Rationale for MC grants - evaluation

Research quality

The researcher's career prospects

Support offered by the host

organisation

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?

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)

Imp

act

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) …

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)

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?

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)

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

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

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.

Q&As

Thank you

UPF RESEARCH SERVICE

WE ARE AT YOUR DISPOSAL!

projectes.recerca@upf.edu