23/11/2016

How to apply for a (Marie Sklodowska-Curie) post doc grant - by two scientists, Christina Bergmann and Sho Tsuji, currently conducting postdoctoral research supported by a Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant.

Categories: Meet the researchers

Tags: MSCA IF


 

 

First, check the eligibility and formal criteria

 

Post doc grants usually fund only between 5 and 20 percent of applications, so they are

happy when they can weed out applications before even sending them out to

reviewers. Avoid being one of those that don’t even get feedback on their work

by checking carefully whether you and your host institution are eligible and

make sure you fulfil all formal criteria (number of pages or word limits, are

all sections and appendices there, is the font correct and not too small, etc).

 

 

For instance, to even be able to apply for a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual

Fellowship you need to be an “experienced researcher”, which is defined as

being in possession of a doctoral degree or have at least four years of

full-time equivalent research experience at the deadline for the submission of

proposals. It sounds simple, but is very important and thus seems not to be

considered enough.

 

Take the non-science parts very seriously

 

If you look at how Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant proposals are evaluated, most of the points

go to aspects of the proposal that have seemingly nothing to do with the

science you want to do. There are many reasons for that, for example, if it is

a training grant, then you should be sure to describe how the experience will

help you grow as a scientist. They also want to make sure that the money is

well spent by asking you to supply a lot of details about where you want to go

and what kind of support you will receive there, both scientifically and in

terms of admin, equipment, etc.

 

Sho will give you a concrete example based on her own experience: “I applied

unsuccessfully once before getting the grant. I got full points on the research

parts but lost points on “Training” (note that this was still under the

previous framework, thus the structure is slightly different now – elements of

the previous “Training” part are now found both in “Excellence” and “Impact”).

The main negative feedback I got was:

(1) The proposal does not give full evidence of how the relevant training courses will

be included in the candidate’s training plan.

 

(2) The provision of training to develop the applicant’s complementary skills, such as

project management, is not sufficiently detailed in the proposal.

 

While this might seem minor, these two points transformed the proposal from an A-ranking

to not even a B-, but a C-ranking, which is one step from the worst!

 

As to (1): In the old proposal, I had mentioned several training activities (learning new

data acquisition and analysis techniques), but not explicitly said how that

would benefit me in the future (thinking that would be obvious). So in the new

proposal, I basically just added one sentence to each of the skills I listed,

saying things like “This skill is crucial for my future research since knowing

how to use technique A is the only way I will be able to assess X in infants”;

“New skill B in combination with my old skill C will make me one of the

pioneers of doing Y in Europe”.

 

As to (2), I had mentioned I would gain project management skills simply by executing my

research project. I had been more specific with other skills, and that was

simple enough: For instance, I mentioned I’d improve my writing skills by

preparing journal articles together with my supervisor. But only for not

specifically saying how I would gain project management skills I lost crucial

points. So for my second try, I described several task coordination scenarios

that would come up during my project, for instance coordinating multiple home

visits at babies’ homes, and linked that to the acquisition of project

management skills.

And voila – that worked!”

 

Take time and ask for a lot of feedback

 

A brilliant, succinct, and impactful research proposal, like most writing, is

rarely churned out a week before the deadline. Do take time, among many

benefits this allows you to look back after a week of doing something else (and

that includes vacation, you deserve it) and spot inconsistencies, omissions,

and generally things to be improved.

 

If you know people who previously applied for the same grant, ask them for feedback.

Ideally, get also people on board who are not in your core research field,

because the evaluators won’t be just from the small pool of your close

colleagues. They often have a new perspective and will help you improve your

proposal further, making it clear even for a non-expert.

 

There are also often dedicated grant advisors, either affiliated to foundations

within your home or target country or at your current / future institution.

They often also offer training sessions, and are usually happy to read your

proposal with an eye on the formal aspects (see previous points, they matter a

lot). In addition, when contacting a grant advisor from your target

institution, they might be able to share previous successful proposals. Do look

at them carefully, even if they come from organic chemistry and you care more

about applied psychology. For example, details about the host institution can

often be re-used.

 

Finally, Sho and I exchanged proposals, because there is no direct competition. The X

best ones will be funded, but they had no problem giving 3 grants to our host

institution in our round, and none in the year before. Someone who is in the

same boat, knows the guidelines as well as you, and still possesses a fresh

pair of eyes can be incredibly useful. We helped and inspired each other, for

example when describing our host lab; the facts about this lab don’t change so

we could use the same information and split the work of finding out what, who,

where, and when. As you see, this strategy was successful in our case.

 

Don’t despair when confronted with very confusing language and an

obscure submission system

 

The text in the documents provided to applicants, especially this template describing the different

subcategories that you are supposed to elaborate on, can be very opaque. I

asked professors at my target institution and did not receive the same

interpretation twice. So what information goes where? This was especially

tricky for us since they had just restructured the grant when Sho and I

applied. So we could not simply look at proposals that our colleagues had

kindly shared from previous years. Here, too, it can be extremely useful to

talk to someone in the same boat and figure this all out together, and to ask

some external grant advisor for additional feedback.

 

But even after a lot of asking around and discussing, what goes where stayed opaque in

many cases. Our strategy there was in general to try to implement something

from what everyone said – so write in a way that both professor A and professor

B would be satisfied with. Within the place constraints, better repeat than

leave out – after all, if one reviewer expects a certain element in Part A, she

might still deduct points even if you mention that element in Part B and

therefore left it out in A.

 

It might also take some time to get familiar with the submission system, do not postpone

this bit to the last minute, either. Usually, right before the deadline is

the busiest time for the system anyhow and it will be slow to react. So ideally

have everything ready and just clickediclick, submit. As we wrote earlier, not all messages are as clear as

we’d like them to be within the system, as in the documents. Take your time,

ask someone else, and don’t panic.

 

 

 

About the Marie-Skłodowska Curie Actions Individual Fellowships

What is it?

Individual Fellowships belong to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) under Horizon 2020, the European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.

Individual fellowships are either European Fellowships or Global Fellowships. European Fellowships are an opportunity for Brazilian researchers to work in research labs in Europe for up to two years. Global Fellowships offer the opportunity of Brazil-based research institutions to host a European fellow.

What is the aim of MSCA-IF?

The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships aim at enhancing the creative and innovative potential of experienced researchers (postdocs) through advanced training and international and intersectoral mobility.

Who can apply?

European fellowships are awarded to the most promising researchers of any nationality who want to benefit from advanced training in Europe (mobility rules). The host organisation (academic or non academic) in Europe employs the awarded researcher. Applicants either hold a PhD degree or have at least four years of full-time equivalent research experience.

Why should I apply?

You can expand and strengthen your network and gain new expertise through advanced training and mobility.

How does it work?

Proposals are submitted jointly with a "host" organisation in Europe and you as the researcher. You, the researcher, develop the proposal in cooperation with a European organisation that would be willing to host you. Host organizations can be universities, research centres or companies.

How can I apply?

First, find the right call on the Horizon 2020 Participant Portal here. Then, inform yourself and read the important documents (Guide for Applicants – here for 2016 - and Work Programme).

For questions, please contact brazil@euraxess.net or MSCA NCPs (contact above).

When can I apply?

The next MSCA-IF call for proposals will open on 11 April 2017 with a deadline of 14 September 2017. More information here.

 

Brazilian National Contact Points (NCPs) for Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA):

CONFAP

Mario Neto Borges

marionetoborges@uol.com.br

Elisa Natola

horizonte2020@confap.org.br