www.provence-corse.cnrs.fr
Bourses individuelles Marie Curie 2011
Recommandations aux candidats
Service Partenariat et Valorisation
Guide réalisé par le
service Partenariat
et Corse
Valorisation
Délégation
Provence et
Juinet2011
Délégation CNRS Provence
Corse - Mai 2011
avant propos
Ce guide est destiné aux chercheurs qui souhaitent déposer un projet dans le cadre des appels
Marie Curie. L’objectif de ce guide est de maximiser les chances d’obtention d’une bourse.
Elaboré à partir des commentaires faits par les panels d’évaluation en 2010, ce guide apporte
quelques recommandations. Les critères d’évaluation repris dans les tableaux sont issus de l’appel à
proposition se clôturant le 11.08.2011 pour les International Outgoing Fellowship (IOF), International
Incoming Fellowship (IIF), Intra European Fellowship (IEF) et le 06.09.2011 pour les Career Integration
Grant (CIG). Une présentation de la structure des différents types de bourses est donnée.
Des statistiques ainsi qu’une liste de sites internet et de contacts utiles sont annexés. Pour information,
la liste des Pays Membres de l’Union Européenne (UE), des Pays Associés, des Pays Partenaires
(International Cooperation and Partner Countries ICPC) ainsi que des Pays Tiers est jointe.
A noter que ce guide est un complément d’information. En phase de montage, le boursier et/ou
le responsable scientifique devra se rapprocher du service Partenariat et Valorisation quelques
semaines avant la date de dépôt du dossier.
foreword
This evaluation guide is designed to help the researchers in preparing their project proposal for a
Marie Curie grant. It is intended as a tool for the researchers in order to maximize their chance of
being awarded a grant.
Based on the panels comments during the evaluation phase of the proposals submitted in 2010, this
guide highlights some recommendations for potential applicants. The evaluation criteria mentionned
in the templates are based on the FP7-PEOPLE-2011 call with a closure date on 11.08.2011 as for
the International Outgoing Fellowship (IOF), International Incoming Fellowship (IIF), Intra European
Fellowship (IEF) and FP7-PEOPLE-2011 call with closure a date on 06.09.2011 for the Career
Integration Grant (CIG). A presentation of the structure of the different types of grants is done.
Some statistics, useful websites and contacts as well as a list of the European Union (EU) Members
States, Associated Countries, International Cooperation and Partner Countries (ICPC) and Other
Third Countries is provided.
Please, note that this guide gives only additional information. During the preparation phase of the
proposal, the fellow and/or the scientist in charge must contact the service Partenariat et Valorisation
a few weeks ahead of the deadline of the call.
Délégation CNRS Provence et Corse
Service Partenariat et Valorisation
31 chemin Joseph Aiguier 13402 Marseille Cedex 20
tél. 04 91 16 40 08
mél : [email protected]
Marie Curie 2011
sommaire
International Outgoing Fellowship
p.4
• Presentation of the Grant
• Technical Details of the Grant
• Evaluation criteria and Panel comments
International Incoming Fellowship
p.8
• Presentation of the Grant
• Technical Details of the Grant
• Evaluation criteria and Panel comments
Intra European Fellowship
p.14
• Presentation of the Grant
• Technical Details of the Grant
• Evaluation criteria and Panel comments
Career Integration Grant
p.20
• Presentation of the Grant
• Technical Details of the Grant
• Evaluation criteria and Panel comments
Annexes:
p.24
• List of the European Union Members States, Associated Countries, International Cooperation and Partner
Countries (ICPC) and Other Third Countries
• Resources
Marie Curie 2011
International Outgoing Fellowship (IOF)
Objective
“This action aims to reinforce the international dimension of the career of European researchers
by giving them the opportunity to be trained and acquire new knowledge in a high-level organisation active in research,
established in an Other Third Country. Subsequently, these researchers will return with the
acquired knowledge and experience to an organisation in a Member State or Associated country”.
Structure
Proposals for IOF involve formally a host organisation established in a Member State or an Associated
Country, and a partner organisation established in an Other Third Country. The project proposals are
submitted by experienced researchers who meet the eligibility criteria (see later in this guide) in liaison with a host
organisation which is represented by the scientist in charge.
Experienced researcher = future Fellow
Scientist in Charge = the person in charge of the Fellow in the host organisation; another Scientist in Charge has to be
identified for the partner organisation.
IOF grant eligibility criteria
Duration
Between 24 and 36 months (full time equivalent), with an outgoing phase of 12 to 24 months and a
final mandatory reintegration phase of 12 months.
Eligible researcher :
To be eligible, Fellows must either :
i) Experience criteria
or
•
have at least 4 years of research experience (full-time equivalent) after obtaining the degree
which would formally entitle them to embark on a doctorate either in the country in which the
degree was obtained or in the country in which the research training will be provided ;
•
are already in possession of a doctoral degree (PhD).
The time limit to fulfil one of these conditions is the deadline for proposal
submission of the relevant call.
ii) Nationality criteria
The Fellows shall be considered eligible under this action if they are nationals of a Member State
or an Associated Country. However researchers from Other Third Countries who have been residing
and carrying out their main activity in Member States or Associated Countries for at least the 5 years
prior to the submission deadline are also eligible for this action.
Condition of mobility
The fellows must not have resided or carried out their main activity in the
country of the partner organisation for more than 12 months in the 3 years
prior to the deadline for the submission of the proposal.
For the outgoing phase, the Fellows must move from a Member State or Associated Country to an
Other Third Country.
Marie Curie 2011
IOF: International Outgoing
Fellowship 2010 ( Evaluation criteria
2011/ Panel comments 2010)
Evaluation criteriaCriterion 1: S&T
Quality (award) Weight: 0,25
Criterion 2: Training ( award)
Weight: 0,15
Criterion 3: Researcher (award) Weight: 0,25
Criterion4: Implementation ( selection)
Statistics IOF CNRS délégation Provence - Corse 2008-2010
Number of proposal submitted
2008
3
2009
8
2010
2
Total
12
Number of proposal selected
1
1
1
3
Success rate : 25%
Number of projects funded per scientific panel
International Outgoing Fellowship (IOF)
2007
2008
2009
2010
% of increase /2009)
CHE
28
32
43
55
27,91%
ECO
9
8
19
19
0,00%
ENG
40
58
67
100
49,25%
ENV
71
103
125
133
6,40%
LIF
99
126
190
218
14,74%
MAT
11
12
15
16
6,67%
PHY
41
39
56
83
48,21%
SOC
33
63
83
114
37,35%
TOTAL
332
441
598
738
23,41%
Marie Curie 2011
IOF: International Outgoing Fellowship ( Evaluation criteria 2011/ Panel comments 2010)
Priority in case of ex aequo :
Weaknesses
Strenghts
Evaluation criteria
3
2
1
Criterion 1: S&T Quality (award)
Criterion 2: Training (award)
Criterion 3: Researcher (award)
Weight: 0,25
Weight: 0,15
Weight: 0,25
Issues to be addressed :
- Scientific/ technological quality, including
any interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
aspects of the proposal
- Appropriateness of research methodology and approach
- Originality and innovative nature of the
project, and relationship to the «state of
the art» of research in the field
- Timeliness and relevance of the project
- The Host institution scientific expertise in
the field (outgoing and return Host)
- Quality of the group/ supervisors (outgoing and return host)
Issues to be addressed :
- Clarity and quality of the research training objectives for the Fellow
- relevance and quality of additionnal scientific training as well as complementary
skills offered
- The Host institution expertise in training
experienced researchers in the field and
capacity to provide mentoring/ tutoring
(outgoing and return Host)
Issues to be addressed :
- Research experience
- Research results including patents, publications, teaching
etc
Research objectives are outlined against
the background of the «state of the art».
Scientific and socio economic reasons for
carrying out further research in the field
are sufficiently explained.
The training at the outgoing Host will give
the opportunity to initiate fieldwork
The Fellow ‘s research achievements are demonstrated by
publications, numerous conferences reports and participation in meetings
Methodological approach is very well
described and, although partly not proven
yet, is likely optimal yet for the proposed
project
Expertise of both Host institutions in training and mentoring/ tutoring of researchers
is outlined
Match between the Fellow’s qualities and the project is very
suited
The outgoing Host institution is one of the
leader institutions
Additional scientific training is relevant and The Fellow has proved his ability to adapt to different reof high quality. Complementary skills are
search environments and cultures and has already demonaddressed in both Host institutions
strated clear potential for reaching a position of professional
maturity
Information on the return Host institution
regarding participations in projects, publications, patents, and any other relevant
results is not sufficiently presented.
The description of training in the return
Host institution is not sufficiently detailed
The research output is low compared to the level of experience
The originality and innovative nature of
the project, and relationship to the «state
of the art», in the field are not sufficiently
presented
The Host institution’s experience in training experienced researcher in the field
and capacity to provide mentoring are
poorly presented. The research training
objectives are not clearly presented in
the proposal. The complementary skills
offered are addressed in too general
manner
The career developement plan is not clearly specified in the
proposal
The Host scientific expertise in the field
has been insufficiently explained
Timeliness and relevance of the project
are not convincingly demonstrated
Marie Curie 2011
- taking into account the level of experience
- independent thinking and leadership qualities
- Match between the Fellow’s profile and project
- Potential for reaching a position of professional maturity
- Potential to acquire new knowledge
The potential to acquire new knowledge is not fully demonstrated
5
4
Criterion 4: Implementation (selection)
Criterion 5: Impact (award)
Weight: 0,15
Weight: 0,20
Issues to be addressed :
- Quality of the infrastructure/ facilities and international collaborations
of host (outgoing and return Host)
- Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of
the scientific project (outgoing and return Host)
- Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan
- Practical and administrative arrangements, and support for the Hosting of the Fellow (outgoing and return Host)
Issues to be addressed :
- Potential of acquiring competencies during the fellowship to improve
the prospects of reaching and/ or reinforcing a position of professional
maturity, diversity and independence, in particular through exposure to
transferable skills training
- Contribution to career development or re-establishment where relevant
- Potential for creating long term collaborations and mutually beneficial
co-operation between Europe and other Third Country
- Contribution to European excellence and European competitiveness
- Benefit of the mobility to European research area
- Impact of the outreach activities
Research infrastructure of the outgoing Host institution is very excel- The newly acquired competencies and skills will strengthen the recognilent and that of the return Host also very good. The return Host has a tion of the Fellow, thus contributing to his career development
high potential of making use of the experience gained by the applicant
during the outgoing phase
The working plan looks credible, comprehensive and feasible, being
designed as a complete cycle from experiment planning up to the
interpretation and writing reports.
Strong potential of acquiring useful competencies during the fellowship
Both institutions have a trustworthy routine of practical and adminisGood potential for the advancement of the Fellow’s career
trative arrangements, they look sufficient and adequate. Good project
management protocols are in place for both outgoing and return Hosts
Complementary skills are addressed in both institutions
The feasibility and credibility of the project are not clear, as the work
plan is insufficiently described
The proposal does not contain a convincing explaination that the mobility
is genuine. Although going to work in a different geographical and working
environment, the Fellow will visit an institution which has rather similar
research interest and facilities than his previous Host institution
Practical and administrative arrangements, and support for the Hosting of the Fellow are underestimated
The potential for creating long term collaborations and mutually beneficial
co-operation between Europe and the Third Country is low
Project management and the contingency plan are not well described
in the proposal
The benefit of mobility to the Euroepan research area is insufficiently
presented
Marie Curie 2011
International Incoming Fellowship (IIF)
Objective
“This action aims to reinforce the scientific excellence of the Member States and the Associated
Countries through knowledge sharing with incoming top-class researchers active in an Other Third
Country to work on research projects in Europe, with the view to developing mutually-beneficial research cooperation between Europe and an Other Third Country. It aims to encourage these researchers to plan their
period of international mobility within the framework of a coherent professional project and
thus enhances the possibility of future collaborative research links with European researchers and
research organisations in their future research career”.
structure
Proposals for IIF formally involve an incoming host organisation established in a Member State or an Associated
Country, and with a possible return phase. The project proposals are submitted by experienced researchers who meet the
eligibility criteria in liaison with the incoming host organisation which is represented by the scientist in charge.
Experienced researcher = future Fellow
Scientist in Charge = the person in charge of the Fellow at the Host organisation
IIF grant eligibility criteria
Duration
12 to 36 months with an incoming phase from 12 to 24 months and a possible return phase of 12 months (full
time equivalent). The return phase will normally begin not later than 6 months after the end of the incoming
phase.
Eligible
researcher
To be eligible, Fellows must either :
i) Experience
criteria
or
•
have at least 4 years of research experience (full-time equivalent) after obtaining the degree which
would formally entitle them to embark on a doctorate either in the country in which the degree was
obtained or in the country in which the research training will be provided ;
•
are already in possession of a doctoral degree (PhD).
The time limit to fulfil one of these conditions is the deadline for proposal submission
of the relevant call.
ii) Nationality
criteria
Fellows can be of any nationality
Condition of
mobility
For the incoming phase, participants are legal entities established in a Member State or an Associated
Country.
A possible return phase can be planned under certain conditions.
Fellows of any nationality must comply with the following mobility :
• Mobility from an Other Third Country to a Member State or Associated Country
The Fellows must not have spent or carried out their main activity in the country of
their Host organisation for more than 12 months in the 3 years immediately prior
to the deadline for the submission of proposals.
Marie Curie 2011
ICPC
Other Third Countries
Statistics IIF CNRS délégation Provence - Corse 2008-2010
Number of proposal submitted
2008
2
2009
12
2010
11
Total
25
Number of proposal selected
0
3
1
4
Success rate : 16%
Number of projects funded per scientific panel
International Incoming Fellowship (IIF)
2007
2008
2009
2010
% of increase /2009)
CHE
98
117
161
175
8,70%
ECO
7
8
20
26
30,00%
ENG
76
101
141
168
19,15%
ENV
85
97
145
136
-6,21%
LIF
170
182
307
383
24,76%
MAT
23
21
38
30
-21,05%
PHY
77
102
170
155
-8,82%
SOC
26
33
57
96
68,42%
TOTAL
562
661
1039
1169
12,51%
Marie Curie 2011
IIF: International Incoming Fellowship ( Evaluation criteria 2011/ Panel comments 2010)
Strenghts
Evaluation criteria
Priority in Case of ex aequo
3
2
1
Criterion 1 S&T Quality (award)
Criterion 2: Transfer of knowledge (award)
Criterion 3 Researcher (award)
Weight 0,25
Weight: 0,15
Weight: 0,25
Issues to be addressed:
- Scientific/ technological quality, including any
interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of
the proposal
- Appropriateness of the research methodology
and approach
- Originality and innovative nature of the project,
and relationship to the «state of the art» of
research in the field
- Timeliness and relevance of the project
- Host institution research expertise in the field
- Quality of the group/ researchers in charge
Issues to be addresed:
- Potential of transferring knowledge to a European host and/ or bringing knowledge to Europe
- Clarity and quality of the transfer of knowledge
objectives
Issues to be addressed:
- Research experience
- Research results including patents, publication, teaching etc
- Independent thinking and leadership qualities,
and capacity to transfer knowledge
- Match between the Fellow’s profile and project
The proposed project is of high scientific quality,
the timeless and relevance of the project are
very good.
There is a good potential of transfer of some
special technical skills to Europe
Good teaching, some awards, some supervison, several publications
The research methodology is appropriate, clearly The Fellow will bring some new aspects to the
described and viable
research performed at the Host institution.
Leadership qualities and capacity to transfer
knowledge are well presented
The Host institution has an active group working The Fellow will obtain relevant competencies
in the proposed research area, and on producing
results of high quality
Impressive record of publication. He has made
original contribution to the field.
Several interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
aspects of the proposal are described
The clarity and quality of the transfer of knowledge The match between the Fellow and the project
objectives are very good.
is excellent
The original and innovative nature of the project
and the relationship to the state of the art of
research in the field are very good
The Fellow is involved in training graduate and
undergraduate students
The Host institution’s scientific expertise in the
field and the quality of the group/ supervisor are
very good
The Fellow has proven the capacities for independent thinking and leadership and has shown
in the past very good capacities to transfer
knowledge.
10 Marie Curie 2011
5
4
Criterion 4: Implementation (selection)
Crierion 5: Impact (award)
Weight: 0,15
Weight: 0,20
Issues to be addressed:
- Quality of infrastructure/ facilities and international collaborations of
host
- Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of
the scientific project
- Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan
- Practical and administrative arrangements, and support for the
hosting of the Fellow
Issues to be addressed:
- Potential for creating long term collaborations and mutually beneficial
co-operation between Europe and the Third Country
- Contribution to European excellence and European Competitiveness
- Benefit of the mobility to the European research area
- Impact of the proposed outreach activities
The Host institution has good research experience in the area of this
project
The potential for creating long-term collaboration is very good
The Host institution and the lab are well equiped for the activities
proposed and have the specific expertise required for project implementation
The project will contribute to European excellence by bringing knowhow
The Host institution is a leader in the field and provides an excellent
environment for the project, The practical arrangement for the management of the project are very well described.
The project can contribute to research competitiveness in Europe by
enhancing the research potential of one of its leading team
Very good infrastructure and facilities are available at the Host institution. Practical arrangements, administrative management and support
for the Fellow are in place. The project appears feasible and credible
The proposal will help to attract a competent researcher back into the
European research area
The feasibility and credibility of the project are very good with a very
detailed work plan
Marie Curie 2011
11
IIF: International Incoming Fellowship ( Evaluation criteria 2011/ Panel comments 2010)
Criterion 2: Transfer of knowledge (award)
Criterion 3 Researcher (award)
Weight 0,25
Weight: 0,15
Weight: 0,25
The objectives and methodology are not sufficiently novel and are not state of the art
It has not been sufficiently demonstrated in the
proposal that the Host institution has the capacity
to provide mentoring
The scope of the proposed work may be too
broad to be tackled in its entirety within the time
scale of the project
The scope of the project is rather limited. There
is very little interdisciplinarity in this proposal, its
focus follows rather too narrowly the direction of
the Fellow’s PhD thesis.
There is no sufficient proof of mobility
Given the brief summary of the outcome of
some of the papers, it is not exactly clear what
the role of the Fellow in the mentioned project
was.
The arguments given for the innovative and
original aspects of the proposed research are
rather weak
The details on exactly what knowledge will be
tranferred are not clearly provided
The capacity to transfer substantial knowledge
to the Host institution is not strong due to the
limited overall experience of the Fellow
Certain parts of the section on the research
methodology describe the motivation behind the
project rather than the tools to be used. Therefore it is difficult to assess their originality
The transfer of knowledge appears to occur more
from Europe towards the Third Country, where the
Fellow will return after the project
The focus of the Fellow research so far is rather
narrow. There is limited evidence for independent thinking.
The role of the Fellow at the Host institution is
not very clearly presented.
The transfer of knowledge objectives are not
clearly described. Given that the Fellow’s career
is still at a very early stage, one can expect only
a limited transfer of knowledge, especially to the
Host institution.
Leadership qualities have not been convincingly
demonstrated
Weaknesses
Criterion 1 S&T Quality (award)
The potential of the Fellow to transfer his knowled- Some of the published papers are not in top
ge to the Host institution, which already has a lot
international journals
of experience in many fields, is not addressed.
Instead the knowledge already present at the Host
institution is described.
12 Marie Curie 2011
Criterion 4: Implementation (selection)
Crierion 5: Impact (award)
Weight: 0,15
Weight: 0,20
More information is required to ensure that the project is feasible and
credible
The project does not add more value to European excellence
The practical arrangements for the implementation and management
of the scientific project are not well addressed
New knowledge will not be accumulated
The workplan is not well presented or fully justified and lacks a contin- The benefits of creating long term collaborations between Europe and
gency plan
Third Country are slightly overestimated
The diversity of the project may be an obstacle to its realisation,
rendering its feasibility and credibility questionable
The benefits to European excellence and competitiveness have not
been explained convincingly
Arrangements for implementation and management are only vaguely
sketched
A significant contribution to European excellence and European competitiveness is neither well highlighted nor envisaged
The international collaborations of the Host institution are not well
explained
There are no clear milestones presented to evaluate the project’s
progress
The work plan does not develop on the actual milestones that need to
be implemented for the completion of the project.
The timeline for some parts of the proposal may be underestimated
More comprehensive risk analysis would be needed
Marie Curie 2011
13
Intra European Fellowship (IEF)
Objective
“This action is to support the career development, of experienced researchers at different stages
of their careers, and seeks to enhance their individual competence diversification in terms
of skill acquisition at multi- or interdisciplinary level and/or by undertaking intersectoral
experiences. The aim is to support researchers in attaining and/or strengthening a
leading independent position, e.g. principal investigator, professor or other senior position in education or
enterprise.”
Structure
Proposals for an IEF involve a single host organisation established in a Member State or an Associated
Country. The project proposals are submitted by experienced researchers who meet the eligibility criteria in liaison
with a host organisation which is represented by the scientist in charge.
Experienced researcher = future Fellow
Scientist in Charge = the person in charge of the Fellow in the Host organisation
IEF grant eligibility criteria
Duration
Between 12 and 24 months
Eligible researcher
To be eligible, Fellows must either :
i) Experience criteria
•
have at least 4 years of research experience (full-time equivalent) after obtaining
the degree which would formally entitle them to embark on a doctorate either
in the country in which the degree was obtained or in the country in which the
research training will be provided;
•
are already in possession of a doctoral degree (PhD).
or
The time limit to fulfil one of these conditions is the deadline for
proposal submission of the relevant call.
ii) Nationality criteria
Condition of mobility
Fellows can be of any nationality
Mobility from a Member State or an Associated Country to another Member State or an
Associated Country:
At the time of the relevant deadline for submission of proposals, the
Fellow s must not have resided or carried out their main activity in
the country of their host organisation for more than 12 months in the
3 years immediately prior to that deadline.
14 Marie Curie 2011
Statistics IEF CNRS délégation Provence - Corse 2008-2010
Number of proposal submitted
2008
6
2009
2
2010
4
Total
12
Number of proposal selected
1
1
1
4
Success rate : 33%
Number of projects funded per scientific panel
Intra European Fellowship ( IEF)
2007
2008
2009
2010
% of increase /2009)
CHE
172
177
272
279
2,57%
ECO
36
45
72
71
-1,39%
ENG
122
134
204
289
41,67%
ENV
286
248
309
388
25,57%
LIF
543
577
774
885
14,34%
MAT
69
72
103
95
-7,77%
PHY
242
227
291
356
22,34%
SOC
202
258
379
495
30,61%
TOTAL
1672
1738
2404
2858
18,89%
Marie Curie 2011
15
IEF: Intra-European Fellowships (Evaluation criteria 2011/ Panels comments 2010)
Priority in case of ex aequo
3
2
1
Criterion 2: Training (award)
Weight 0,15
Criterion 3 Researcher ( award)
ght: 0,25
Issues to be addressed:
- Scientific/technological quality, including
any interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
aspects of the proposal
- Appropriateness of the research methodology and approach
- Originality and innovative nature of the
project, and relationship to the «state of the
art» of research in the field
- Timeliness and relevance of the project
- Host institution research expertise in the
field
- Quality of the group/ supervisor
Issues to be addressed:
- Clarity and quality of the research training objectives for the Fellow
- Relevance and quality of additional scientific training as well as of complementary skills offered, with
special attention to exposure to the industry sector,
where appropriate
- Host institution expertise in training experienced
researchers in the field and capacity to provide
mentoring/ tutoring
Issues to be addressed:
- Research experience
- Research results including patents, publications, teaching etc, taking into account the
level of experience
- Independent thinking and leadership qualities
- Match between the Fellow’s profile and
project
- Potential for reaching a position of professional maturity
- Potential to acquire new knowledge
The working hypothesis is supported by
preliminary results
The fellowship objectives are clearly stated
The Fellow has a good potential to acquire
knowledge and is apparently capable of independent thinking
The scientific/ technological quality of the
project is novel
The complementary training and skills to be provided during the fellowship are outlined and would
contribute to the complementary scientific competencies of Fellow’s career
The match between the Fellow’s profile and
project is very good
Strenghts
Evaluation criteria
Criterion 1: S&T Quality (award)
0,25
Weight
Wei-
Timeliness of the project is clear and properly The Fellow will gain knowledge in several technijustified
ques
A comprehensive description of the Fellow’s experience is presented. The Fellow’s
research results are of good quality. They are
well demonstrated by the list of publications
and the description of major accomplishments
The Host institution’s scientific expertise in
the field is very good, having demonstrated
the capacity to be in the forefront in its area of
research by producing high quality research
outputs. The quality of the group/ supervisor
is unquestionable.
Successful co-supervision of PhD students as
well as the guidance of small research unit indicate a very good talent for leading researchers.
The Fellow has demonstrated leadership qualities.
The proposal is aiming at a multidisciplinary
approach
Very good evidence is given on the Fellow’s
ability to think independently under «Major
accomplishments»
Clear ability to easily and rapidly adapt to new
challenges and acquire new knowledge
16 Marie Curie 2011
5
4
Criterion 4: implementation (selection)
Weight: 0,15
Criterion 5: Impact (award)
Weight: 0,20
Issues to be addressed:
- Quality of infrastructure/ facilities and international collaborations of
the Host institution
- Practical arrangement for the implementation and management of
the scientific project
- Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan
- Practical and administrative arrangements, and support for the
hosting of the Fellow
Issues to be addressed:
- Potential of acquiring competencies during the fellowship to improve
the prospects of reaching and/or reinforcing a position of professional
maturity, diversity and independence, in particular through exposure to
complementarity skills training with special attention to exposure to the
industry sector, where appropriate
- Contribution to career development or re-establishment where relevant
- Contribution to European excellence and European competitiveness
- Benefit of the mobility to the European Research Area
- Impact of the proposed outreach activities
The proposal sufficiently demonstrates a high quality infrastructure
and international collaborations on behalf of the Host institution
The potential for acquiring competencies is clearly demonstrated
A detailed work plan is provided. It is credible, with clear objectives,
milestones and deliverables
The proposal will substantially contribute to restart or re-oriente the
Fellow’s career
Practical and administrative arrangements are sufficiently elaborated
There is a possibility of synergies between the former laboratories of the
Fellow and the Host institution
The Host institution and the co operating institutions provide all the
necessary routine and special equipement to enable the Fellow to run
the project smoothly
The contribution of the action to career development and performance
in Europe is convincingly explained
The supervisor has the appropriate experience to run the project
The contribution to European excellence is very good
Preliminary data indicate that the project is feasible
The benefits and transfer of knowledge are visualised on the diagram
giving the clear answer to all issues under this criterion
Marie Curie 2011
17
IEF: Intra-European Fellowships (Evaluation criteria 2011/ Panels comments 2010)
Weaknesses
Criterion 1: S&T Quality (award)
0,25
Weight
Criterion 2: Training (award)
Weight 0,15
Criterion 3 Researcher (award)
ght: 0,25
The innovative nature, the timeliness and the
relevance of the project are not convincing
The objectives of the training are not explicitly
identified and formulated in general terms.
The Fellow is lacking sufficient documented
scientific results
Most of this section of the proposal is devoted to the description of the background and
the preliminary results. The information on
the proposed experiments is not sufficiently
detailed
The offer of additional scientific training is mentioned only very briefly and is not correlated to the
needs of the applicant
The potential to reach a position of professional maturity and to acquire new knowledge is
not properly described
The field of interest is exciting and the
It is not demonstrated in the proposal that the Host
scientifc objectives are well explained but the is experienced in training post-doc or to which
proposal suffers from limited originality and
extend it can provide mentoring/ tutoring
innovative content
The scientific field of interest is multidisciplinary but covers a rather limited scope
The methodological approach is presented
in general terms and a vaguely formulated
research process is presented, which lacks a
clear link between goals and methodologies
Supervisor are not stated and only general
statements are made on the institution itself
18 Marie Curie 2011
Wei-
The proposal does not demonstrate substantial research experience as the Fellow appears
mainly working on problems, methods and
practicabilities of education not directly linked
to the research proposal
Criterion 4: implementation (selection)
Weight: 0,15
Criterion 5: Impact (award)
Weight: 0,20
The research process and the outcome of the research are somewhat
vaguely formulated in terms of general publications
The proposal lack real potential in contributing to European excellence
and competitiveness
It is difficult to evaluate the feasibility of the work plan due to the lack
of methodological clarifications
It is not clearly stated in the proposal how the fellowship will contribute
to the long-run development of the Fellow’s career
There is no discussion of potential pitfalls or any alternative hypothesis. A contingency plan would be valuable
Major parts of the project are set up as a mere continuation of the Fellow’s previous theoritical/ computational work. The potential impact of
the project on his expertise and on his career development is therefore
questionable
Marie Curie 2011
19
Career Integration Grant (CIG)
Objective
“The objective is to reinforce the European Research Area by encouraging researchers to establish
themselves in a Member State or in an Associated Country, for example after a period of mobility. The
action is designed to provide the researchers who have been offered a stable position and who are considering
establishing themselves in Europe, with their own research budget, thus contributing to the success of their research
career. The action is intended to improve considerably the prospects for the permanent
integration of researchers who are taking up, for the first time, a stable post in Europe. This action should
also allow the transfer of knowledge they have acquired prior to the CIG, as well as to the development of lasting
cooperation with the research and/or industrial environment of the country from which they have moved. This action
has a particular emphasis on countering European “brain drain” to Other Third Countries.”
Structure
Proposals for CIG involve a researcher who has done a period of mobility abroad and who has been offered a
stable position in a Member State or an Associated Country. The project proposals are submitted by
experienced researchers who meet the eligibility criteria in liaison with a host organisation which is
represented by the scientist in charge.
Experienced researcher = future Fellow
Scientist in Charge = the person in charge of the Fellow in the Host organisation
CIG grant eligibility criteria
Duration
From 24 to 48 months
Eligible researcher
i) Experience criteria
To be eligible, Fellows must either
•
have at least four years (full-time equivalent) research experience, including the
period of research training, after obtaining the degree which formally allows them
to embark on a doctorate either in the country in which the degree/diploma was
obtained or in the host country
•
be in possession of a doctoral degree (PhD)
or
The time limit to fulfil one of these conditions is the deadline for
proposal submission of the
relevant call
ii) Nationality criteria
The Fellows can be of any nationality
A Fellow who has benefited or is benefiting from a FP6 or FP7
Reintegration Grant is not eligible for funding under this call.
Condition of mobility
The host organisation is based in an EU Member State or Associated Country
The Fellow must not have resided or carried out his main activity
in the country of the Host organisation for more 12 months in the 3
years immediately prior to the deadline of the call.
20 Marie Curie 2011
Statistics IRG CNRS délégation Provence - Corse 2008-2010
Number of proposal submitted
2008
2
2009
2
2010
1
Total
5
Number of proposal selected
1
1
1
3
Success rate : 60%
Marie Curie 2011
21
CIG Career Integration Grant 2010 ( Evaluation criteria 2011/ Panel Comments 2010)
Strenghts
Evaluation criteria
Priority in case of ex-aequo
2
1
Criterion 1 : S&T Quality Weight: 30%
Criterion 2: Researcher Weight: 30%
Issues to be addressed :
- Scientific/ technological quality, including any interdisciplinary
and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal
- Research methodology
- Originality and innovative nature of the project, and relationship to the «state of the art» of research in the field
- Timeliness and relevance of the project
Issues to be addressed :
- Research experience
- Research and technological quality of the previous research
- Independent thinking and leadership qualities
- Match between the Fellow’s profile and project
- Benefit of the career of the researcher from the period of the re-integration
Very high quality, interdisciplinary scientific project
There is a good match between the project and the expertise of the Fellow
Very well adapted methodology
The publication record of the Fellow is very good with papers in high impacts
journals
Innovative project
The Fellow’sindependent thinking is proven by successful grant application
for funding his research as a PI
The project is pluridisciplinary and several techniques will be
combined
The Fellow will be integrated in a good laboratory where new scientific
expertise should be acquired
The project is timely and relevant in the development of this
field of study in Europe
Impressive and varied (observation and theory)
research experience
The rationale for the experimentation is well defined with clear
coherent objectives and a proper contingency plan
The new challenge of starting a research group will be beneficial
The background information on the subject topic is well presented
The Fellow has mentored students
The fellowship would benefit the researcher’s
career in helping him to obtain a permanent position
Weaknesses
Very good candidate ready for an independent
position
The proposal discussed several subtopics, some
of them based on appropriate completion of previous steps
Active participation in conference in recent years is slightly below what is
expected at this career stage
It is not clear that the research plan can be fully
implemented at the time scale of the project
Despite a good physics background, the leadership profile is more pronouced for work of technical nature but not sufficiently demonstrated
concerning the more conceptual aspects of his research
No contingency plans are suggested
22 Marie Curie 2011
4
3
Criterion 3: Implementation Weight: 20%
Criterion 4: Impact Weight 20%
Issues to be addressed :
- Quality of the Host institution, including adequacy of infrastructure/
facilities
- Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan
- Dissemination and exploitation of results
Issues to be addressed :
- Potential of transferring knowledge to the Host institution
- Capacity to develop lasting co-operation and collaborations with the
other countries
- Contribution to research excellence by attracting first class researchers
- Contribution to European excellence and European competitiveness
- Potential and quality of lasting (expected length of work contract,
expect career development)
- Impact of the proposed outreach activities
The Host institution is committed to high quality and international competitive research in the field.
The Host institution can greatly benefit from the complementary knowledge of a first class researcher, increasing European competitiveness
The necessary equipement will be provided
Huge potential of transferring knowledge, as it is missing at
the Host institution and in France in general
A credible work plan is presented
Very good prospects of developing collaborations with Members states
or Associated countries
Good practical arrangement and straightforward management
The project will very positively contribute to the researcher’s
employment conditions
The expected funds will be wisely spent allowing the Fellow to intensify
his international collaborations
Obvious contribution to European excellence and
competitiveness
Good Host institution and lab with an ongoing
EU project related to the current proposal
The Fellow has obtained a permanent position
The Fellow will transfer knowledge of specific methodologies and
experience to the Host laboratory
The Host institution has little experience with the subject of the proposal
The perspective for a stable long-term position will depend on future
local factors and achievements
The feasibility of the work plan at the time scale of the proposal is not
fully demonstrated
The potential of a lasting professional integration needs tobe clarified
for the life of the fellowship
The management of the project is not described in sufficient details
The description of the budget is not clear
The Host institution should indicate more precisely its own contribution
(budget) and attract more people to this ambitious project.
Practical arrangements for the fellowship are described but the management of the fellowship needs to be more fully addressed
Little information is given on the administrative
arrangements or the project management
Marie Curie 2011
23
Annexes
List of the European Union Members States, Associated Countries, International
Cooperation and Partner Countries (ICPC) and Other Third Countries
The European Union Member States are : Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France,Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.
The Associated countries are : Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Faroe Islands, FYROM, Iceland,
Israel,Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey.
Other countries (such as the United States of America, Canada...) may become associated during the course of FP7.
The latest news willbe posted on the CORDIS web site: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html.
Liste des ICPC - International Co-operation Partner Countries
AFRICAN
angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina-Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African republic
Chad
Comoros
Congo (Republic
Congo (Democratic Rep.)
Côte d’Ivoire
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
GAbon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
LIberia
MAdagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Afraica
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
24 Marie Curie 2011
CARIBBEAN
barbados
belize
cuba
dominica
dominican rep.
grenada
guyana
haiti
jamaica
saint kitts and nevis
saint lucia
saint vincent and grenadines
suriname
trinidad and tobago
malaysia
maldives
mongolia
nepal
oman
pakistan
philippines
sri lanka
thailand
vietnaù
yemen
ESTERN EUROPE AND
CENTRAL ASIA (EECA)
armenia
azerbaijan
belarus
PACIFIC
georgia
cook islands
kazakhstan
timor lest
kyrgyz republic
fiji
moldova
kiribati
russia
marshall islands
micronesia, federal state of tajikistan
turkmenistan
nauru
ukraine
niue
uzbekistan
palau
papua new guinea
samoa
solomon islands
tonga
tuvalu
vanuatu
LATIN AMERICA
argentina
bolivia
brazil
chile
colombia
costa rica
ASIA
ecuador
afghanistan
el salvador
bangladesh
guatemala
bhutan
honduras
burma/myanmar
mexico
cambodia
nicaragua
china
democratic people’s of korea panama
paraguay
republic
peru
india
uruguay
indonesia
venezuela
iran
iraq
lao people’s democratic rep.
MEDITERRANEAN
PARTNER
COUNTRIES (MPC)
algeria
egypt
jordan
lebanon
libya
morocco
p a l e s t i n i a n
administrered areas
syrian arab rep.
tunisia
-
WESTERN
BALKAN
COUNTRIES (WBC
kosovo
Resources
contact utile pour le montage de votre projet
Service Partenariat et Valorisation
CNRS Délégation Provence et Corse
31, Chemin Joseph Aiguier
13402 Marseille Cedex 20
Tel : 04.91.16.40.08
[email protected]
Sites internet
Marie Curie actions
http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/
Portail de la Recherche et du développement Européen : Cordis
http://cordis.europa.eu/home_fr.html
Service français d’accès à l’information sur la recherche européenne : Eurosfaire
http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/
crédits photos
© CNRS/Photothèque/VAULOT Daniel, UMR 7144 - © CNRS/Photothèque/CACHON Jean, CACHON Monique,
URA 671 - © CNRS/Photothèque/CARRE Claude URA 716 - © CNRS/Photothèque/DOLAN John UMR 7144.
Marie Curie 2011
25