How to apply for a Marie Curie
Intra-European Fellowship
Simon Smith
Sociologický ústav SAV
(with thanks to Margaret Credland of the University of
Leeds Research and Innovation Service for the content of
some slides)
The application process
• One stage evaluation process
• Part A – Administrative information
– The majority of this information is supplied by the host
organisation
• Part B - Free Text description of the research project
based on evaluation criteria
– This part is usually written by the researcher
Register on EPSS
• Register in good time and know the forms
Part B
• Maximum 25 A4 pages excluding:
– Table of contents
– B6 ethical issues table
– Start and end page
Read thoroughly the Horizon2020 Work Programme
and the Guide for Applicants
Evaluation Criteria IEF (old)
Evaluation Criteria IEF (new)
Excellence
Impact
Implementation
Scientific Quality, Training,
Supervision, Researcher
Impact on Researcher and
Research Users
Workplan, Management,
Environment, Institutional
Competence and
Commitment
50%
30%
20%
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
General tips and recommendations
•
Structure your proposal according to the headings provided
•
Duplicate information where necessary
•
Don’t expect the evaluators to be experts in your research field
•
Don’t expect the evaluators to make assumptions
•
Stress any involvement of third parties such as businesses and other research labs
•
Think about presentation
•
Provide justification
•
Be specific
•
Provide evidence/examples
•
Remember the IEF is about career development as well as research
Scientific quality element
• Demonstrate experience in research field of
host organisation and the scientist in charge
– Research track record
– International collaborations
– Participation in projects
– Publications
– Patents
• Have a strategy for addressing deficits
• Justify why you need to be there
Training element
• Explain how fellowship will add different
/complementary scientific skills
• Explain how these will be beneficial for the
development of fellow’s research career
• Outline any complementary skills training to be
provided
• Detail the benefits to Europe of researcher acquiring
proposed new skills
Researcher element
• Outline major research achievements of Fellow
- Funded Projects
- Publications
- Patents
- Reports
- Participation at conferences
• Include short description of 3 major research accomplishments –
Max 250 words in total
- Purpose
- Results
- Skills acquired
- Outcomes
Implementation element
• Demonstrate the host’s ability to deliver the project
• Detail the facilities available at the host organisation that will
enable the project to be delivered
• Describe how participants from different sectors /disciplines will
collaborate
• Prove the host has the capacity to manage and absorb the project
• Demonstrate the host(s) have experience of managing /delivering
research projects in similar research areas
Impact element
•
Describe how the fellowship will enable the fellow to gain competencies & skills
(immediate benefits)
•
Specify how the fellowship is expected to enhance capabilities to work and/or
communicate across disciplines and sectors
•
Explain how the fellowship will help fellow to reach &/or reinforce position of
professional maturity & independence
•
Detail benefits of complementary skills &/or skill diversification
•
Describe how the fellowship will contribute to European research excellence and
European competitiveness
•
Justify how the mobility is genuine – significantly different working
environment/country
Ethics element
• Ethics are taken very seriously by the
European Commission
– Not an evaluation criteria, but could be a reason
for exclusion!
– A thorough research ethics review will take place
after acceptance before your grant is approved
– Local arrangements need to be in place
Personal experience
• What did the reviewers like?
– Interdisciplinarity, timeliness, well-articulated methodology,
additional supervision and training arrangements,
communication with non-academic audiences, project fits
profile, clear plan for deliverables, strong career development
plan, connection to European thematic priorities, previous
experience in Slovakia, awareness of ethical issues
• What did the reviewers criticise?
– Lack of specifics about some methods, hypotheses insufficiently
specified, skills already acquired, weaknesses of host
organisation on specific topic, capacity for support if the project
runs into difficulties
(my overall score was 93.9)