ERC proposals submission and evaluation
The Covent Garden, Brussels
Krakow, 13 January 2017
Jozef Dulak, PhD, DSc
Professor and head
Email: [email protected]
http://biotka.mol.uj.edu.pl/zbm/
Personal perspective
1. Grant reviewer and panel members for several founding bodies:
- national: NCN, NCBiR, FNP, Ministry of Science and Higher Education
- international:
- European Research Council
- Horizon 2020
- 6 & 7 Framework Programme
- Norwegian Research Council
- Wellcome Trust
- others
2. Currently – also a member of the Committee of the Evaluation of Scientific Institutions
(KEJN)
3. Successful in grants applications (MAESTRO, OPUS, HARMONIA, NCBiR grants etc.)
ERC Evaluation process (StG, CoG & AdG)
Panel structure: 3 domains and 25 panels
Social Sciences and Humanities (SH) - 6 panels
Each panel :
Panel Chair and
10-16 Panel Members
Life Sciences (LS) - 9 panels
LS1 Molecular & Structural Biology &
Biochemistry
LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics &
Systems Biology
LS3 Cellular & Developmental Biology
LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology &
Endocrinology
LS5 Neurosciences & Neural disorders
LS6 Immunity & Infection
LS7 Diagnostic Tools, Therapies & Public health
LS8 Evolutionary, Population & Environmental
Biology
LS9 Applied Life Sciences & Non-Medical
Biotechnology
SH1 Markets, Individuals & Institutions
SH2 The Social World, Diversity & Common Ground
SH3 Environment, Space & Population
SH4 The Human Mind and its Complexity
SH5 Cultures & Cultural Production
SH6 The Study of the Human Past
Physical Sciences & Engineering (PE) - 10
panels
PE1 Mathematics
PE2 Fundamental Constituents of Matter
PE3 Condensed Matter Physics
PE4 Physical & Analytical Chemical sciences
PE5 Synthetic Chemistry & Materials
PE6 Computer Science & Informatics
PE7 Systems & Communication Engineering
PE8 Products & Process Engineering
PE9 Universe Sciences
PE10 Earth System Science
Ask yourself before application (1)…
Proposal - idea
• Is my project innovative not incremental ?
• Does it go beyond the existing state of the art?
• Is my project brave enough (high risk) but also feasible (substantiated by
scientific evidence, preliminary results?)
• Is the methodology proposed sufficient (novel enough, can provide the
data validating the hypothesis?)
•
Am I sufficiently familiar with all the methods planned to be applied?
Or can I provide explanation how the new methods will be introduced?
• What are the potential risks for the projects; its limitations?
• What kind of mitigations strategies can I propose in case the problems
arrise
(never write: there are no risk; all problems will be solved etc…!)
│4
Ask yourself before application (2)…
Myself as an applicant
• Am I the correct person to execute the proposal – what are my experiences and
expertise?
• Is my research really excellent? – in terms of the quality criteria, not only bibliometric data…
• Do I have sufficient capacity/experience to supervise the team (PhD students,
post-docs)?
• Do I have sufficient expertise to manage the project for 5 years?
ERC grant should not be your first grant application…
2. Is my research internationally recognized ?
- how my papers are cited ?(in comparison to the work of scientists dealing with the
similar subjects elsewhere)
- are the well cited papers original ones (consider the correction for the review papers
- they are important, but citations of reviews is biased)
- is my scientific activity internationally recognized by other measures (invitations
to speak at the conferences; organisation of the crucial scientific meetings, etc)
Preparing an application
1. Think of a title and acronym (but do not exaggerate the significance of acronym..)
2. Work a lot on Abstract…(it makes the first impression of your proposal; and is often
referred to... )
Preparing part B1
3.1. Should be concise and understable to both non-(full) specialists and specialists
- in first stage of evaluation only the synopsis is read!
- part B1 should convince that you are able to perfom the project (remember
about methodology – it shows the feasibility of the proposal!
3.2. Be sure to present not only your scientific achievements but also scientific
independence !
In Step 1: Panel members (generalists and with multidisciplinary approaches) see only
Part B1 of your proposal. Be aware of that!
Part B2 – do not just repeat B1; provide more information – this might be very
important, in case the same person reviews B1 and then B2
- Explain the involvement and the role of team members
- Provide more details to mitigate risks
- Illustrations are very helpful
Useful tips and some notes on rumors…
 Read the guidelines carefully
 Select the host institution/provide the rationale for the choice – NOTE:
The host institution is not an evaluation criteria (but the feasibility of executing the
project in the institution is assessed!)
 Select the "right" Panel – very IMPORTANT (but do not do that „politically”)
 Choose carefully your descriptors and free keywords
 Project has to be easy read and attractive (discuss the project with your colleagues, asks for
advice/comments
 Describe clearly methodology: it is important to convince that you are familiar/aware of it,
not just plan to use because of fashion…
 Describe clearly the budget (mention the rules of calculations in the host institution)
│7
Excellence is the sole criterion of evaluation
of ERC proposals
Excellence is the sole criterion of evaluation
of ERC proposals
Excellence is the sole criterion of evaluation
of ERC proposals
Typical reasons for rejection (1)
Proposal
• not novel, narrow, incremental
•
too broad – unfeasible
• Not hypothesis-driven
• Not individual – consortium-like
• Not sufficient details/experience on methodology;
• Not convincing preliminary results/ not sufficiently detailed
plan (if no preliminary results, explain clearly the hypothesis!)
• Risk management and mitigation strategies not provided/not
convincing
Typical reasons for rejection (2)
Principal investigator

Insufficient quality of publications (quality of papers matters,
not numbers!)

Insufficient independence (for AdG, partially CoG) or
potential for independence (for StG) – independence is
assessed on the basis of the role in papers; publication of
papers only with the PhD supervisors may be/is a limitation

Lack of experience/insufficent quality in leading of projects
(ERC grant cannot be your first application!)
Interview (StG & CoG)
•
Start with brief introduction on yourself – but do not over-advertise your CV!
•
Show your interest and enthusiasm – to be remembered by the PMs
•
Have clear and representative slides ("Less is more"!) – not to much detailed, but comprehensive
(making your research „secret” does not create good visibility… )
•
Behave in a way to be remembered positively by the panel – but do not exaggerate with the
way of presenting… (science not performance matters…!)
•
Bring back up slides for discussion
•
Answer all questions, if not sure ask back the question
•
Keep the time – no excuse for exceeding the time! – and there is no time for extension! (the next
•
•
applicant is waiting…)
PRACTICE, practice, practice !!!!!
│ 13
Excellence in CV
- convincing records of well recognized publications
- Your role in publications is the leading one: depending on the type of grant you are
applying for, the role differs (first author for StG, but also some with leadership position
- more papers with leadership position are required for CoG and particulary for AdG
Note:
- publications in „top” journals (may) help, but are not guarantee for the success
- publishing with senior scientists (former supervisors) raises doubts about
maturity/scientific independence.
- Give publishing trend is possible, explain gaps in the trend (maternity, illness,
army, ..), explain publishing habits in your field and country (eg. the „rules”
that the head of the clinic has always a leading/senior position…
Excellence in CV (2)
What it does not mean:
1. Requirements for the papers to be published only in „top” journals, like Nature, Science
(this helps, but only if the papers are well recognized/good…)
2. Automatic ascribing by the panel/reviewers the high mark for the high citation number
and high h index – this is assessed according to the quality, not matematical calculations
(but of course there is a correlation of the quality with the bibliometric parameters)
3. Position in the scientific „establishment” /lobbying
Excellence in CV – continued…
ERC grantees are not only those, who published in the „top” journals
1. This is more common for life science, but is not the rule/dogma
2. „Top” journals means good quality papers – this might be related to the
impact factor of the journal, but not necessarily
One has to be sufficiently self-critical, but also brave enough to properly assess her/his
own quality of research and capability to apply for the ERC grant
Do not present as the proof of your excellence such „criteria” like notoriously used in Polish
grants/applications for the degree/title:
- Summarised impact factor (so called SIF…)
- Papers with the long list of authors in which you are in the middle... (significant
contributions counts, not just publications in “top” journals)
„Stories”/rumours are more common with other grants
in Horizon 2020
Myth: only professional company can prepare the good grant application
But:
way of writing and presenting yourself interview (for Starting and Consolidator) is important
Rules of evaluation in ERC are similar to those in Polish National Science Centre – but less
regulated
- there are no weights/importance for individual subcriteria – the total mark counts
What does it mean if you will not get an ERC grant?
„Prestiżowy charakter grantów ERC powoduje, że samo ich uzyskanie stanowi
potwierdzenie klasy naukowca i jakości prowadzonych przez niego badań”
Really… ? What about those who failed…?
Success rate in ERC grants is very low - does the failure mean that someone is a worse
scientists than those who got the grant…?
ERC grantees publish in the very good journals – but the large proportion of papers is
publihsed also in such journals like ”PLoS One”… is this worse…? (individual papers have
to be assessed!)
Even the top scientific journals recognize the danger of „impact mania”…
(San Franciso Declaration of Research Assessments - SF DORA)
Be self-confident but humble/modest at the same time…
and…
Good luck!