msca doctoral networks 2021

© 2021 innoScope Este Taller cuenta con la cofinanciación del Programa Operativo FEDER de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia 2014-2020, Línea de Actuación 2: “Asesoramiento, búsqueda de socios y financiación de Proyectos de I+D+i internacionales

MSCA Doctoral Networks 2021

Claves para redactar una propuesta competitiva

18 y 28 de Junio 2021

Francisca GómezEU Expert Consultant

A few words about me…

I am a EU strategic consultant and trainer and participate as an expert evaluator and project reviewer for the European Commission since 2001, with a specific focus on MSCA, ERC, FET and Widening actions.I have been involved in EU Framework Programmes as a researcher and later on as a consultant for more than 30 years, and have supported applications throughout several programmes with high success rates.

© 2021 innoScope

MSCA in a nutshell

Going through some of the basic of MSCA-DN call in 20201.

Agenda

Evaluation uncovered

Understanding the key elements of evaluation that will support making up your proposal.

Before writing…

…A review of some initial steps that will heavily contribute to consistency and success.

Last steps before submittingSome of the issues usually disregarded but that will make a difference in your proposal.

Building up your proposalOnce you arrive here, an in-depth discussion of the issues you will have to account for through the writing process.

© 2021 innoScope

Day One Day Two

Objetives

Disclose and discuss MSCA-DN-2021 main

elements

Provide the tools toassess your ideas, define your project

and plan theproposal writing

Understand the key elements to

incorporate in each of the proposal sub-sections

Identify the keysthat define a highly

competitive DN Project and

understand theevaluation process

Present theinformation and

resources availableto enrich your

proposal

© 2021 innoScope

MSCA Doctoral NetworksIn a nutshell

Women in Science: 50 Fearless Pioneers Who Changed the World,

© 2021 innoScope

http://www.rachelignotofskydesign.com/women-in-science/

Excellent Science (Pillar 1): reinforcing and extending the excellence of the Union’s science base

Source: European Commission© 2021 innoScope

MSCA in Horizon Europe

MSCA ITN DOCTORAL NETWORKS networks training doctoral candidates

MSCA IF POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWHIPS postdoctoral researchers

MSCA RISE

MSCA COFUND

MSCA NIGHT

STAFF EXCHANGES any type of research (-related) staff

MSCA COFUND Co-funding training programmes

MSCA AND CITIZENS Public outreach events

H2020 Horizon Europe

© 2021 innoScope Source: European Commission

H2020 vs Horizon Europe

MSCA Doctoral Networks


Objectives:

Train creative, entrepreneurial, innovative and resilient doctoral candidates, able to face current and future challenges and to convert knowledge and ideas into products and services for economic and social benefit.

Raise the attractiveness and excellence of doctoral training in Europe.

Combine research-related and transferable competences and provide researchers with enhanced career perspectives in both the academic and non-academic sectors.

Provide international, interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral mobility combined with an innovation-oriented mind-set.

Respond to well-identified needs in various R&I areas (bottom-up; any scientific domain).

DN is not a research project It is RESEARCH

TRAINING PROGRAMME

Standard:• Implementation of a joint research and training programme.

Industrial doctorates:• Doctoral candidates are jointly supervised by academic and non-academic

organisations, both of which can be established in the same EU Member State or Horizon Europe Associated Country - novelty

Joint doctorates:• The objective is to create coherent programmes that deliver joint, double

or multiple doctoral degrees recognised in at least one EU Member State or Horizon Europe Associated Country.

• Joint Doctorates must set up a joint governance structure with joint admission, selection, supervision, monitoring and assessment procedures.

Available schemes


European Training Networks

(ETN)

European IndustrialDoctorates

(EID)

European Joint Doctorates (EJD)

H2020

Who applies?• Consortia of universities, research institutions and research infrastructures, businesses including

SMEs, and other socio-economic actors.• At least three independent legal entities, each established in a different MS or AC; minimum of 1

beneficiary from a MS (on top of this minimum, any entity from any third country can join; no minimumfor associated partners).

Industrial Doctorates:• At least one of the three independent legal entities must be from the academic sector and at least one

must come from the non-academic sector.

Joint Doctorates:• At least three independent legal entities must be entitled to award doctoral degrees. • At least two of the institutions conferring a joint, double or multiple doctoral degree must be established

in an EU Member State and/or HE AC.• The final degree(s) must be awarded by institutions from at least two different countries.• Pre-agreement for joint degrees required at the proposal stage.

Applicants


Recruited Researchers - Target Groups:

Any nationality. Must be doctoral candidates (not in

possession of a doctoral degree at the date of recruitment).

Must be enrolled during the project in a doctoral programme, in at least 1 EU Member State/Associated Country (at least 2 for Joint Doctorates) – novelty

Mobility rule: not resided/main activity in thecountry of the beneficiary more than 12months in the last 3 years before theirrecruitment date.

Applicants


Recruitment conditions:

All beneficiaries must recruit at least one doctoral candidate.

They are required to host them at their premises and supervise recruited researchers, or use associated partners linked to them to do it.

For Industrial and Joint Doctorates, a researcher can be employed 100% by a beneficiary or recruited separately by each beneficiary for the period of time spent there.

For Industrial: researchers must be at least 50% at the non-academic sector

Not more than 40.0% of the EU contribution may be allocated to beneficiaries in the same country or to a single international organisation.

Definitions


Beneficiary

• Signs the Grant Agreement with the EC• Receives funds directly from the EC• Claims costs to the EC• Recruits researchers• Hosts researchers/offer secondments, training

activities• Participates in the Supervisory Board

Associated Partner*

• Does not sign the Grant Agreement• Does claim costs directly from the EC• Does not recruit researchers• Hosts researchers/offer secondments,

training activities, Knowledge transfer..• Participates in the Supervisory Board * Equivalent to Partner Organisations in H2020

General characteristicsSize:

• Up to 360 person-months (standard) + 180 additional person-months for joint orindustrial doctorates (incentive) – novelty

Duration:

• Programme: max. 48 months

• Fellowship: between 3 and 36 months

• Industrial doctorates: academic and non-academic organisations jointly supervising can be in thesame country – novelty

• Secondments worldwide up to 1/3 of the fellowship duration – novelty

Calls:

• 2021: 22 June - 16 Nov; 402.95M€

• 2022: 3 May - 15 Nov; 427.28M€

• Resubmission restrictions applying as of 2022 for applications receiving a score below 80%


Finances

* A country correction coefficient applies to the living allowance in order to ensure equal treatment and purchasing power parity for all researchers


Contributions for recruited researchersPer person-month

Living allowance

EUR 3 400

Mobility allowance

Family allowance

(if applicable)

Long-term leave

allowance(if applicable)

EUR 4 000x

% covered by the

beneficiary

Special needs

allowance(if applicable)

Requested unit1

x(1/number of

months)

Institutional unit contributionsPer person-month

Research, training and networking contribution

EUR 1 600

Managementand indirectcontribution

EUR 1 200EUR 600 EUR 660

Call DN 2021: 402.95M€

Publication22/06/2021

Closing16/11/2021

Proposalsevaluation12/21-01/22

EvaluationResults04/2022

GAsignature

05-07/2022

Timetable for the HEUROPE MSCA-PF-2021 Call (8 months TTG)

Call open for 5 months 5 months for evaluation 3 months for signature

15

Timing*

Possible start date for MSCA DN Action: 1 June 2022 – 1 September 2022

Call ID Opens Closes Budget

H2020-MSCA-DN-2021 22-JUNE-2021 16-NOVEMBER-2021 402,95M€

Questions

© 2021 innoScope

Evaluationuncovered

© 2021 innoScope


MSCA-DN-2020 in numbers


MSCA-DN-2020 in numbersWhat does this mean?For instance• In the CHE panel aprox. 80

proposals out of 132 couldresubmit the following year.

• In ENG panel aprox. 215 out of383 proposals could resubmitthe following year.

• ….The majority of the proposals are above the resubmission threshold, but not within the fundable zone. The remaining 10-20%, are the real competitors.

Chair and Vice-chairs: Assist evaluation management and monitor progress Do not evaluate proposals Act as Rapporteurs for their proposals

• Draft and submit consensus report• Lead remote consensus report finalisation

Quality check individual / CR (Cross reading) Participate in the central panel review

Who are the expert evaluators?

© 2021 innoScope

Evaluators: Assess the proposals they have been assigned and prepare an Individual Evaluation

Report (IER) making use of specific indications provided to do it. They reach an agreement with the rest of the experts evaluating the proposal over the

final Consensus Report and the scores (3 experts). They have a wide range of expertise as EU evaluators. Their background and scientific profiles are complementary.

How does evaluation work

© 2021 innoScope

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/h2020-msca-eid_manual_for_evaluators_2019-final.pdf

12

3

Remote evaluation process

• 3 experts per proposal;

• 2 Vice-Chairs per proposal: One acts as rapporteur and the second one asquality checker.

• 1 Chair: organises vice-chairs y manages the panel.

Briefing (videos) and manuals where expert evaluators are instructed on theprocedures, criteria and key elements to take into account to ensure quality.

Nº proposals per expert evaluator: 3 – 8 máx. 10

Nº proposals per vice-chair ~ 10

3 weeks to generate the Individual Evaluation Reports.

3 weeks for draft CRs + 2 weeks to negotiate CR and accept the finalversion.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/h2020-msca-eid_manual_for_evaluators_2019-final.pdf

How are experts selectedPROPOSAL PART A

SCIENTIFIC PANELS• Select the panel where you will address your

proposal (8)DESCRIPTORS

• Between 3 & 5 from a predefined list• Select the descriptors that best match with the

disciplines that have a direct link with yourproposal

FREE KEYWORDS• You have up to 200 characters to define the

keywords that best define your proposal(article style)

© 2021 innoScope

How are experts selected

© 2021 innoScope

Research Executive Agency (REA)Chair and Vice-chairs (experts with large experiencein the evaluation of MSCA-IF actions) are the onesselecting the best experts to evaluate the proposals.

Expert evaluators (database)

REA uses as an initial filter the descriptors in order toextract the initial lists of experts from which theevaluators are selected (AI algorithm).

Descriptors (invitation received before deadline)• Maximum 10 descriptors from a fixed list• You have to indicate the level of knowledge of

each of the ones selected (100-60-30%)

Choose your descriptors

© 2021 innoScope

Scientific Areas & selection of DescriptorsTo have the most appropriate experts evaluate your proposal youshould: Select the area of research that better matches with the subject of

your project (e.g. CHE) and, Within the most relevant sub-area of research (e.g. C2), select the

first and second descriptors that best characterises the subject of your proposal.

Third descriptor: it is mandatory to select at least one more descriptor that can be chosen from any of the eight areas of research.

You may add two more free descriptors if needed.

The list of descriptors can be found in the GfA*

© 2021 innoScope

1. Earth observations from space/remote sensing (ENV)

3. Spatial and regional planning (including landscape and land management), GIS, Urbanization and urban planning, cities (ENV)

2. Natural hazards (ENV)

4. Machine learning, data mining, statistical data processing and applications (ENG)

Very high resolution

optical

Active RS

Physical modelling tsunami

Flood hazardClimate hazards

Atmospheric correction

Urban planning

Database management

Cloud computing

Landscape analysis

EXAMPLE. Development of earth observation tools for rapid response to flood hazards in urban environments

Earth Observation

GIS

How do evaluators work?

Most evaluators start by familiarisingthemselves with the proposals by looking at the content list or by a more unstructured skimming of the text.

Most go through the proposal more than once.

Almost all evaluators quickly get an impression of proposal quality (after a few pages of reading or skimming various key elements of the proposal).

© 2021 innoScope Source: Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education

What do evaluators dislike?


What do evaluators appreciate? A good abstract that pitches the idea, embraces excellence, impact and implementation, and

creates curiosity and excitement. The first pages should be exciting. Pitch your ideas immediately and answer the questions ‘why

is it important’ and ‘how will your concepts solve the problem?’ Clear and convincing objectives. Make only short background descriptions that convince the evaluators that you are the right one

to answer the questions and bring the research beyond state-of-the-art. Well structured proposals, covering the right areas under the different criteria in the proposal

template. A strong focus on relevance for the project. Nothing even slightly irrelevant should have a place

in the proposal. High quality graphics that illustrate the concepts in a simple manner. Figures and Gantt chart that show the project has a clear idea about how the individual parts

and tasks are interconnected and timed intelligently, so the reader can see a well-thought out project plan.


MSCA DN Evaluation criteriaExcellence Impact

Quality and efficiency of the implementation

Quality and pertinence of theproject’s research and innovation objectives.

Contribution to structuring doctoral training atEuropean level and strengthening Europeaninnovation capacity.

Quality and effectiveness of the workplan, assessment of risks andappropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages.

Soundness of the proposedmethodology.

Credibility of the measures to enhance the careerperspectives of researchers and contribution totheir skills development. Quality, capacity and role of each

participant, including hosting arrangements and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.

Quality and credibility of thetraining programme.

Suitability and quality of the measures to maximiseexpected outcomes and impacts, as set out in thedissemination and exploitation plan, includingcommunication activities.

Quality of the supervision. The magnitude and importance of the project’scontribution to the expected scientific, societaland economic impacts.

50% 30% 20%


MSCA DN Evaluation criteria

© 2021 innoScope

Overall threshold 70 / 100

The scores indicate the following with respect to the criterion under examination:

0 – Proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.

1 – Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.

2 – Fair. Proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.

3 – Good. Proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.

4 – Very Good. Proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.

5 – Excellent. Proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.

Excellence: 4.5Impact: 5Implementation: 4.7

4.5∗0.55

+ 5∗0.35

+ 4.7∗0.25

= 94

How to approach a resubmission (MSCA-ITN-2020 and before)

Scores lower than 70 (threshold): Advisable to review the whole proposal from the conceptual point of view (sometimes the idea is

Good but the way it has been worked out in the proposal is not suitable).

Scores between 70 and 90: Identify which is the most evident criticism and assess potential options to overcome it. Analise positive comments from a critical point of view. Identify the adjectives that have been used

to define your proposal and identify the shortcomings that are contributing to lower scores. Identifiy if there is any evaluation criterion that is not clearly listed. Be careful with these as they may

be hiding additional shortcomings.

Scores over 90: Review all previous ítems to identify ways to improve your proposal. In addition, double check panel & keywords selected, and have it reviewed by someone external

that may add some insights on the reasons why you did not get better scores.

Understanding ESRs

© 2021 innoScope

REA estimatesthat nearly 50% of

MSCA-ITN proposals are resubmissions

Understanding ESRs

© 2021 innoScope

The state of the art is very well described.

The state of the art is extremely well covered and very good progress is expected.

The proposed training at the level of research projects and network-wide is of very high quality and contains innovative aspects for all ESRs.

The training program contains multi-disciplinary research training and cross-disciplinary training involving a strong integration of key scientific and technological knowledge. The transferable skillsare very well integrated in the training program. Inter-sectoral training is a strong force of the proposal, and will be facilitated by secondments tailored to the needs of each ESR. ESRs will be strongly involved in structuring their PhD program through a detailed Personal Career Development Plan.The network-wide training events are comprehensive and very well planned.

The quality of the supervision is supported by a well-conceived monitoring scheme.

The co-supervision arrangement is very well conceived, with adequate co-supervision and secondments, at the interface between disciplines and sectors.

ESR language assessment

provides an idea of the aspects to

care about

Understanding ESRs

© 2021 innoScope

The impact on the ESRs’ career development and the improvement of job opportunities are well elaborated.

The research and training program is certainly appropriate to prepare the ESR's for an ambitious career in either the academic or non-academic sector. The specific research objectives, together with the training and management procedures and the complementary ESR projects are set up in a way that will maximize scientific and cross-sectorial impact. The significant inter-sectoral interaction will enhance an entrepreneurial mindset.

The IP rights management is adequate.

The path for exploitation and IP management is clear, and the active contribution of the trainees, as part of their transferable skills training, to the exploitation plan, is commendable.

Dissemination activities are well elaborated and involve a strong role for ESRs.

The foreseen dissemination activities are all clear, very well though-out, and involve not only high-level academic dissemination but also the industrial sector and policy makers.

Understanding ESRs

© 2021 innoScope

The work-plan is well thought-out, with appropriatedeliverables and milestones.

The work plan is well and logically structured, with inter-related work packages, relates well to the research and training objectives, and is described in good detail with effective deliverables and milestones that clearly reflect their objectives.The work plan is particularly coherent in terms of the integration of ESR projects to the common vision.

The management structure is presented in detail and the supervisory board structure and functions ensures that training and research activities as well as IPR are conveniently managed.

The management procedures and structures are highly efficient, with a good flow of information guaranteed. The ESR's are actively involved in the management structure. The progress monitoring structure is effective and implemented explicitly. Risks have been identified and are convincingly assessed with mitigation actions identified.

Competence and experience of the participant organisations are well demonstrated. The complementarity of partners and beneficiaries is clear.

Competences and previous experience of the participating beneficiaries and partners are high, and partner organisationsbring a key experience in the program. The commitment and complementarity of the participating organisations is clearly demonstrated.

Questions

© 2021 innoScope

Before writing…

STEP 3

© 2021 innoScope

STOP

STEP 4Develop the

concept

Schedule the writing

STEP 2

Structure your proposal

Ideas screening

STEP 1

Relevant documents

Where to find useful information

Why participating?

A typical MSCA-DN fellowship

Why participating?Researchers

International, inter-sectorial and multidisciplinary experienceAcquisition of high-level research capacities and transferable skills for their future careerBetter career prospects in and outside academia. Readiness for the “next step” in career.Higher impact of the research outcomesEnhanced cooperation networks….

© 2021 innoScope

Supervisor/Host group*

New insights on research focus and development/reinforcement of new linesIncrease of the international profileDevelopment of leadership skills and independence of participating researchersBuild/strength existing and new collaborations/networksSupport to attract new funding….

*Depending on the career stage

Host Institution/Assoc. PartnersImproved quality, relevance and sustainability of doctoral training programmes and supervisionInstitutional reinforcementIncreased talent attractionBetter knowledge transfer and robust alliances with partnersImprovement of R&I capacities in participantsBetter outreach to society….

A typical Doctoral Network project A well defined scientific or technical challenge that demands the development of knowledge and for

which there is the need to train a new generation of researchers as current profiles do not match therequirement.

An opportunity to develop new highly specialised career profiles with well identified employmentopportunities.

A relevant group of institutions from different countries, sectors and disciplines that have the backgroundand the means to put in place an innovative research and training programme that will have an impacton structuring research at the EU level in this/these discipline/s.

A robust joint research & training programme designed to set up the corpus of this new generation ofresearchers that will be able to provide insights to solve the challenge.

A consistent number of PhD projects to advance knowledge in each of the key aspects that have to beaddressed to achieve the ultimate aim.

A high-level multifaceted training and strong supervision scheme that will provide ESRs with the skillsand the knowledge required to develop their careers in the future. Online training has been introduced as anovelty in Heurope (many projects already incorporated it).

A consistent communication, dissemination and exploitation strategy of the Project’s results.

© 2021 innoScope

Funding and Tenders portal – official EU site Work programmes, guide for applicants, templates,

FAQs, etc.

Proposal submission access point

Project results and statistics (+ alternative sources) Helpdesk

Login for registered users (need of an ECAS account)

Access point for evaluators (experts) Advice and information can also be found through:

◦ MSCA website / REA website

◦ Net4Mobility+ website

◦ https://www.horizonteeuropa.es/msca

Relevant call information*

© 2021 innoScope

https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/home

https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/

https://rea.ec.europa.eu/horizon-europe-msca-how-apply_en#ecl-inpage-292

https://www.net4mobilityplus.eu/scientific-community/

https://www.horizonteeuropa.es/msca

Additional readingThe European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for their recruitmentReflex project (Euraxess)

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Green Charter (pub. April 9th, 2021)

Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions guidelines on supervision (pub. April 9th, 2021)How to make full use of the results of your Horizon 2020 project (pub. April, 2021)

Open Research Europe

Guidelines on FAIR data management in H2020OpenAIRE

Outreach and communication activities under MSCA in Horizon 2020

Gender Action ProjectGender Plus Project

© 2021 innoScope

https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/am509774cee_en_e4.pdf

https://euraxess-reflex.saia.sk/en/

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2bfbb0d9-9b3c-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-search

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/bb02d56e-9b3c-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/comm/20210330_how-to-make-full-use-of-the-results-of-your-project_h2020_en.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-98,848

https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf

https://www.openaire.eu/

https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/msca/documents/documentation/publications/outreach_activities_en.pdf

https://genderaction.eu/horizon-europe/

https://www.genderplus.eu/

Search for existing projects

© 2021 innoScope

Do you know how innovative is your idea?

Are you aware of any previous or running EU projects that deal with the subject?

In which aspects is your research distinct?

Define the state of the art in terms of publications (cites) and financed projects)

Cordis is the tool the European Commission uses to display all existing information from projects, policies, results, programmes, etc.

• It can be used to identify the projects that have been already financed making use of a series ofsearch parameters

• Results can be filtered and information from the selected projects can be downloaded as a PDF.• Projects information includes a summary, links to webpage, partnership and relevant

documents.

https://cordis.europa.eu/search/en?q=contenttype%3D'project'&p=1&num=10&srt=contentUpdateDate:decreasing

Structure your proposal: ScreeningObjetive:

• Work on the idea by answering a series of questions that help to incorporate the key elements that every MSCA-DN proposal should consider.

• Identify weak points to reinforce them or find solutions before starting to write.

Procedure:

• The idea is usually worked out mainly by the coordinator (one or more partners could also participate).

• It is analysed considering the guidelines for applicants. If resubmitting, previous evaluation experience (ESR) to identify improvements.

• Iterative process until the idea is consolidated.

Maximum recommended time to go through it: 3 weeks (it will take several iterations until you have the feeling that the idea is robust)

© 2021 innoScope

Screening in practice§1 | Stating the needs.

1. What do you AIM to achieve? Describe the problem you would like to solve. Why is this relevant?2. How do you plan to achieve it? What is the research approach you will follow?3. Why is there a need or opportunity NOW to advance in this area? Which are the latest advances that contribute to it?4. Who will benefit from these advances? Will the results of your research contribute to the society, environment, etc.?

§2 | Relevance of the outcomes (Impact)1. Why is this is an area with a strong growth potential in the coming years (with references whenever possible)?2. Justify why there is the need to train researchers in this field (e.g. gaps in current cv, new professions, etc.)

§3 | Overview of the research programme

1. Describe the high-level structure of the work programme, including dependencies. Incorporate a picture if possible.

2. Identify the PhDs you propose to achieve the project goals and identify the work packages to which they are related.

§4 | Partnership

1. Identify the partners that you have to involve to achieve the goals (at least the profiles) and their potential role in the project.

© 2021 innoScope

Try to keep it short (2-4 pages

maximum)

Screeing is Key to identify weak points that you will have to reinforce before going ahead with the idea, consortium built up and PhDs definition.

The iterative revision process positively contributes to consolidate your Project idea and shape it before“facing” the proposal template.

It helps identifying the “Unique Selling Proposition” of your proposal.

You will have a scheme and logic train to follow for several sections. Your proposal will significantlyimprove consistency.

It helps defining the overall research goal, key research objectives and how the consortium will deliver them through a set of PhD projects. It will help maximising secondments definition.

You will identify the consortium that should deliver the programme and its European added value.

You will understand how the graduating ESRs will be employable, by whom and whyScreening is not waisting time. It helps avoiding reformulating the Project when you have

advanced wih the writing.

© 2021 innoScope

Why screening?BE HONEST!!

Writing schedule

© 2021 innoScope

Plan your writing scheduleOnce the concept of your proposal is clear and you have reviewed all materials, you have to understand how much time you have to write the proposal. You do not have to write

strictly in the order of the template’s sections.

You have to leave time enough to review at least twice the proposal

Stick to the schedule Exchange sections if there is

any delay

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

S1.4 A), B) y C)FOLLOW UP

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

FOLLOW UP16 17 18 19 20 21 22

PARTNERSHIP CLOSED

FOLLOW UP Section 1.2, 1.3 & 1.423 24 25 26 27 28 29

S3.4 Competences + Committment

S3.3 infrastructure (from Section 5)

FOLLOW UPLETTERS OF

COMMITMENT30 31 1 2 3 4 5

Section 2.2 Contributions to s tructuring PhD

Section 2.1 Career perspectives and

employabi l i ty

FOLLOW UP Section 3 (no Gantt)

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Section 5 + Section 6 + Section 7

Simplified Gantt Section 2 Section 1

FOLLOW UP + BUDGET Section 3 (Gantt chart inc.) Executive Summary (Section 1.1)

13 14 16 17 18 19 20Executive Summary

(Section 1.1)abstract, keywords

S 1.1.1 Research methodology and approach S 1.1.1 Introduction, objectives and overview of the research programme

Section 1.2, 1.3 & 1.4 (revision)

S3.2 Management - table 3.2a) implementation risks

Section 1.1 (revision)

DECE

MBE

R

Section 1.2 Training programmeSection 3.1 (revision)

ADVISORY BOARD LETTERS + Admin / Section 5 data (DL 27.12)

Section 1.3 A) supervision + B) arrangements

DL

Section 1.1 (revision)

JAN

UARY

Section 5 & Section 7 Beneficiaries, PO, Advisory

Section 2.3 a) b) & Section 2.4

Section 3 (revision) Section 5 -7 (revision)

Section 1 (revision)Section 2 (revision)

S 1.1.1 Originality and innovative aspects ( inc. previous projects) S 1.1.1 Multidisciplinarity + Gender issues

Wrap Up!

Next steps to take…Have a look at the resources available and get familiar with the call. MSCA proposals writing is not like submitting a paper to a journal. Although the call documents are not published yet, MSCA is a consolidated scheme. The basics remain.

Identify you descriptors!! Make a decision on the panel you will submit the proposal before writing as this decision has a heavy weight on the approach you will have to use.

Work on your idea before writing. Carry out an screening exercise to define the key elements of your project. Remember this is a proposal for training in research

Maximise your strengths and handle weaknesses in advance to turn them into shortcomings. Be critical with yourself! If you are resubmitting, pay attention also to the way strengths have been formulated!

Plan ahead and assess how much time will you be able to devote to the proposal. It is a common error believing that MSCA actions are easily written. Define a schedule. Summer pays!

Discuss your idea with other colleagues not familiar with your research. It is key that you make yourself understandable and to receive feedback from people not involved with your research.

© 2021 innoScope

The evaluation process is a lottery.• There is a random factor inherent in the availability of experts to carry out the evaluations.

Generalists tend to evaluate proposals more generously than specialists. It is impossible to get a project the first time you present a proposal.

• When a project is of very high quality, there is consensus among the evaluators in practically all cases.

• When a project is good, it is when opinions begin to differ. If I resubmit systematically at the end I get the project.

• The evaluation each year is independent. It is not uncommon for lower grades to occur on resubmissions. Watch out for the innovation factor !!

I have been rated very well and I do not need to make more than minor changes to the proposal.• Any score below 90 still requires a lot of work.

Myths and legends

© 2021 innoScope

msca doctoral networks 2021

Documents