Post on 18-Jan-2016
transcript
│ 1
The European Research Council
Dr. Doc. Elisabeth RenneyERC Scientific Department, LS7 Panel
Coordinator Zagreb, 10/11/2015
│ 2
Outline
What do we offer?Funding schemes, opportunities
The Evaluation Procedure/ERC Modus operandiHow to prepare and submit a grant proposal
Tips, rumours and the "truth"
│ 3
What is special about the ERC?
•All fields of science and scholarship are eligible• Investigator-driven, bottom-up
•Scientific Excellence is the only criterion• Individual team + research project• Irrespective of nationality, gender or age of researchers
•Attractive grants• Significant, flexible grants, up to five years• Under full control of the Principal Investigator
• Independent individual teams in Europe• All nationalities can apply• Host organisation to be located in EU or Associated
Country
│ 4
Starting Grants
starters (2-7 years after PhD) up to € 2.0 Mfor 5 years
Advanced Grants track-record of significant research achievements in the last 10 years
up to € 3.5 M for 5 years
Proof-of-Concept bridging gap between research - earliest stage of marketable innovation up to €150,000 for ERC grant holders
ERC Grant schemes
Consolidator Grants
consolidators (7-12 years after PhD)up to € 2.75 Mfor 5 years
│ 5
Researchers career development and complementary funding schemes
Post-docs
Senior Professor
Students
Post Graduates
Junior Professor/ Junior Researcher
Associated Professor
Full Professor
Erasmus
Marie Curie
ERC AdG - Advanced
ERC StG - Starters
ERC CoG – Consolidators
│ 6
ERC offers independence, recognition & visibility
• to work on a research topic of own choice, with a team of own choice
• to gain true financial autonomy for 5 years
• to negotiate with the host institution the best conditions of work
• to attract top team members (EU and non-EU) and collaborators
• to move with the grant to any place in Europe if necessary (portability of grants)
• to attract additional funding and gain recognition
• ERC is a quality label
Creative research freedom of the individual ERC grantee
│ 7
Applicant legal entity: institution that engages and hosts
the PI for the duration of the project (25% overheads to HI)
Any type of legal entity: universities, research centres,
business research units … as long as it is in MS or AC
Commitment of HI: to ensure that the PI may
- apply for funding independently
- manage research and funding for the project
- publish independently as senior author
- have access to reasonable space and facilities
Host institution
│ 8
ERC Evaluation process (StG, CoG & AdG) Panel structure : 3 domains and 25 panels
Each panel : Panel Chair and10-16 Panel Members
Life Sciences (LS) 9
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
Social Sciences and Humanities (SH) 6
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
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
│ 9
PART A – online forms
A1 Proposal and PI infoA2 Host Institution infoA3 Budget
PART B1 – submitted as .pdf
Extended Synopsis 5 pagesCV 2 p.Track Record 2 p.
Annexes – submitted as .pdf
• Statement of support of HI• copy of PhD or equiv. (StG & CoG)If applicable: • document for extension of eligibility
window (StG & CoG)• explanatory information on ethical issues
PART B2 – submitted as .pdf
Scientific Proposal 15 p.(incl. budget table)
Submission of proposalsProposal structure
│ 10
ERC Evaluation process : Submission of proposals
Single submission
• one deadline per Call
• to a targeted panel of your choice
• electronically only
• proposals have two parts:
• Part A: administrative forms
• Part B: scientific proposal itself (pdf)
• Step 1: Look at only Part B1
• Step 2: Look at Part B1 + B2
│ 11
Remote assessment by Panel members of section 1 – Synopsis and PI
Panel meeting
Proposals retained for step 2
STEP 1
Remote assessment by Panel members and reviewers of full proposals
Panel meeting + interview (StG+ CoG)
Ranked list of proposals
STEP 2
Redress
Evaluation of proposalsEvaluation procedure
Feedback toapplicants
│ 12
Main features in 2015 - 2016
• Strict resubmission restrictions
• Bs/step 1 restricted 1 year, Cs/restricted 2 years
• Bs/step 2, no restrictions
• Recommended model CV
• Obligation for Open Access
• 25 % HI overhead
• Funding ID in part B1
• Cross-domain explanation to be provided in part B1
│ 13
Excellence as sole criterion, to apply to:
Research Project Ground breaking nature Potential impact Scientific Approach
Principle Investigator (PI) Intellectual capacity Creativity Commitment
Evaluation Criteria
│ 14
Extensions of eligibility window possible for StG and CoG for documented situations of:
• Maternity – 18 months per child• Paternity – effective time taken off• Military service • Medical speciality training• Caring for seriously ill family members
• No limit to the total extension
Extensions of eligibility window
│ 15
• Panel members: typically 600 PMs
involved per call High-level scientists Recruited by ScC from all over the world About 10-15 members plus chair person
• Remote Referees: typically 2000 / call Each evaluate only a small number of
proposals
Other (7%)
Who evaluates the proposals ?
(7%) USA
│ 16
ERC panel members by country of HI and gender (7)ERC Starting, Consolidator and Advanced grant calls 2007 - 2014
UK
DE
FR IT NL
ES
SE
BE
AT
DK FI
PL
HU
PT
CZ
EL IE SI
BG
RO
HR
SK
CY LT
EE
LU LV
MT
CH IL
NO
TR
RS IS
MK
US
CA
AU JP RU
HK IN AR
SA
SG
BR
CL
CN
KR
MX
TW UA
CU IR ZA
EU Associate countries
International
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
ERC STG COG ADG panel members 2007-2014 by host institution country
M (71 %)
F (29 %)
# p
anel
mem
ber
s/p
anel
ch
airs
│ 17
Panel meeting – Step 1 Scoring
Results of Step 1:
A. Proposal is of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation
B. Proposal is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation
C. Proposal is not of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation
│ 18
Feedback to applicantsStep 2 results
Results of Step 2:A. Proposal fully meets the ERC's excellence criterion and
is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are available
B. Proposal meets some but not all elements of the ERC's excellence criterion and will not be funded
At the end of both steps, applicants will be informed about the ranking range of their proposal out of all proposals evaluated by the panel
│ 19
Restrictions of reapplications
• Ever increasing number of applications causes low success rates and high panel workload
• New for 2016 call applicants:
• those who receive a B at Step 1 have to wait out one year
• those who receive a C will have to wait out two years
!
│ 20
ERC StG, CoG, AdG 2014 Age of applicants at call publication date
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
AdG 2014
CoG 2014
StG 2014
Age of applicants at call publication date
# A
pp
lic
an
ts
│ 21
StG, CoG, and AdG 2014Age of grantee
26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65 680
102030405060708090
100
Age of 2014 grantees
ADG COG STG
age of grantee
# g
ran
tees
│ 22│ 22
StG 2014 GranteesYears past PhD
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160STG 2014 # years passed PhD
Years passed phD
# fu
nd
ed p
rop
osa
ls
│ 23
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
STG 2014 # years passed PhD by genderM (253)
F (122)
Female success rate (11.4 %)
Male success rate (11.7 %)
# fu
nd
ed p
rop
osa
lsStG 2014 GranteesYears past PhD
│ 24│ 24
CoG 2014 GranteesYears past PhD
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 160
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
COG 2014 # funded proposals and success rates by years past PhD and gender
M (268)F (104)F success rate (15.2 %)
# years past PhD
# fu
nd
ed p
rop
osa
ls
│ 25
ERC Starting Grant 2014 CallMobility: Incoming and staying grantees
DEUKFR NL IL ES IT DK AT BE IE FI SENOPT HUTR CZROCHRS0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
8072
67
49
41
28
22
15 13 1310 10 8 6 6 6
3 2 1 1 1 1
Grand Total
Grantee staying in the country "non-European"
Grantee staying in the country "European"
Grantee moving to the country
country of host institution
# o
f g
ran
tees
│ 26
ERC Consolidator Grant 2014 CallMobility: Incoming and staying grantees
UK FR NLBE DK SE IE CZ FI
EE HR LU0
20
40
60
80
100
86
66
53
32 32
1613 12
9 9 96 6 5 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Grand Total
Grantee stayng in the country "non-European"
Grantee staying in the country "European"
Grantee moving to the country
Country of host institution
# o
f g
ran
tees
│ 27
ERC Advanced Grant 2014 CallMobility: Incoming and staying grantees
UK DE FR CH NL ES IT DK BE IL AT NO SE FI PT CZ IE0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50Grantee staying in the country "non Eu-ropean"
Grantee staying in the country "European"
Grantee moving to the country
Grantee in the country, national of the country
Country of host institution
# o
f g
ran
tees
45
29
23
22
18
13 1
16
4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
│ 28
Call Planning 2016
• StG 2016 (2-7 years PhD)• Opens end July 2015• Deadline 17 November 2015
• CoG 2016 (7-12 years PhD)• Opens mid October 2015• Deadline 2 Feb 2016
• AdG 2016• Opens end May 2016• Deadline 1 September 2016
• PoC 2015 – Next deadline 1 October 2015 • Existing grant holders only
│ 29
• 2008/2010/2012/2014-AdG, SH4
• 2009/2011/2013/2015-AdG, LS7
• 2009/2011/2013-StG, LS3
• 2013-AdG, LS5
• 2013-CoG, SH5
• 2014-StG, LS6, PE5
Croatian Panel Members/Chairs
│ 30
2007-2014 submissions from Croatian HI (106), Croatian nationals (156, not shown)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2013
2014
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
ADG COG STG
0
5
10
15
20
25
call
# su
bm
issi
on
s
│ 31
Croatian nationalities funded in other countries:
• ERC-2009-AdG, 2 persons in LS1, located in CH, and DE
• ERC-2010-StG, 2 persons in LS6 and PE3, located in DE and CH
• ERC-2011-StG, 1 person in LS1, located in UK
• ERC-2014-CoG, 1 person in LS2, located in FR
Other Croatia related info
│ 32
ERC in practice – tips, rumours and the truth
PLEASE DARE ASKING !!!!!
│ 33
ERC Grant is a proof of one's excellence / Quality label More than 5 000 scientists were successful More than 50 000 were not successful
Is there a key to success?
Le
gis
lati
on
FA
CT
S ERC supports novel ideas, creative minds (wherever they
are), European Research, ground-breaking results, high risk/high gain projects
Excellence as the only criterion
ERC Mission
Start preparing in time (6 months in advance) Read the evaluation criteria carefully (WP) Consult with successful grantees (if possible) Ask colleagues to proof read your application
KE
Y
│ 34
Publishing of the Call (including WP, guides for applicants)
Submission of the proposals (Deadlines)
Eligibility check
Evaluation step 1(assignment of the proposals, cross panel experts, Remote evaluation and Panel discussions at Panel meetings)
Feedback to the Applicants
Evaluation step 2(assignment of the proposals, cross panel experts, Remote evaluation and Interview (only for StG and CoG)
Feedback to the Applicants
Redress cases
Signing the Grant Agreement
ERC modus operandi
│ 35│
Questions to ask yourself as an applicant
• Is my project new, innovative, bringing in new solutions? theory? applications?
• Does it promise to go substantially beyond the state of the art?• Why is my proposed project important?• Is it timely? (Why wasn't it done in the past? Is it feasible now?)• What's the risk? Is it justified by a substantial potential gain? Do I have a
plan for managing the risk?• Why am I the best/only person to carry it out?• Am I internationally competitive as a researcher at my career stage and in
my discipline?• Am I able to work independently, and to manage a 5-year project with a
substantial budget• How can I prove/support my case?
│ 36
Preparing an application Hints and tips (Generalities)
Register early, get familiar with the system and templates and start filling in the forms
A submitted proposal can be revised until the call deadline by submitting a new version and overwriting the previous one
Follow the formatting rules and page limits.
Download and proof-read the proposal before submitting. Make use of the help tools and call documents (Information for
Applicants, Work Programme, Frequently asked questions) to prepare your proposal
Talk to the National Contact Points and your Institution's grant office
│ 36
│ 37
Read the guidelines carefully Consult EC and ERC websites check for funded projects on your topic (can
be done at any time!)
Choose your Host Institution (should be done well in advance) negotiate
Select the "right" Panel – very IMPORTANT, ID explanation
Choose your descriptors and free keywords carefully Presentation of the project
Follow the template (including length)
CV presentation
Project presentation
Tips - once the Call and supporting documents are published
│ 38
In Step 1: Panel members (generalists and with multidisciplinary approaches) see only Part B1 of your proposal: Prepare it accordingly!
Pay particular attention to the ground-breaking nature of the research project – no incremental research. State-of-the-art is not enough. Think big!
Know your competitors – what is the state of play and why is your idea and scientific approach outstanding?
Only the extended Synopsis is read at Step 1: concise and clear presentation is crucial (evaluators are not necessarily all experts in the field)
Outline of the methodological approach (feasibility) Show your scientific independence in your CV (model CV provided in the
part B1 template) Funding ID to be filled in
│
Submission of ProposalsDifferences in Part B1 and Part B2
│ 39
Submission of ProposalsDifferences in Part B1 and Part B2
In Step 2: Both Part B1 and B2 are sent to specialists around the world (specialised external referees)
Do not just repeat the synopsis Provide sufficient detail on methodology, work plan, selection
of case studies etc. (15 pages) Check coherency of figures, justify requested resources Explain involvement of team members (ERC proposals are
NOT collaborative ones) Provide alternative strategies to mitigate risk
│
│ 40
Proposal budget considerations
• Budget analysis carried out in Step 2 evaluation (meeting)• Panels have responsibility to ensure that resources
requested are reasonable and well justified• Budget cuts need to be justified on a proposal by proposal
basis (no across-the-board cuts)• Panels to recommend a final maximum budget based on
the resources allocated/ removed• Panels do not “micro-manage” project finances• Awards made on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis: no
negotiations
│ 41
It is your choice (in MS or Associated countries)
You can change it during the project's life (e.g. your career)
Negotiate with the HI (your position, equipment, administrative support, access to infrastructure, etc.)
Rumours
1. The quality /fame of the HI is increasing my chances/scores
2. There is a lobbying from the not so successful countries to introduce a quota
NOT true, 1. the HI is not an evaluation criteria and it is never discussed at the evaluation
meetings,
2. lobbying is firmly rejected, but WG are set-up to support less successful countries WP
Tips 1- Host Institution
│ 42
Decides on the panel which will evaluate your proposal
Is the basis of allocation to the panel members (with various expertise)
Will determine whether a cross panel evaluation is necessaryE.g. energy-related descriptors can be found in several panels e.g. PE2 (Fundamental Constituents of Matter, PE4 and PE5 (the Chemistry panels), PE7 (Systems and Comm. Eng.), PE8 (Products and Process Eng., incl. PE8_6 Energy Systems)
Rumours1. Choose the panel "strategically"
2. The more cross panel descriptors are indicated, the higher the funding chances, i.e. indicates inter-disciplinarity
NOT really true,
1. your project might be evaluated by a "wrong" panel" (only with restricted expertise)
2. If your project is interdisciplinary, decide on the evaluating panel based on the dominating innovative element of your project
Tips 2- Submission; Descriptors and free keywords
│ 43
Obvious link between Parts B1 and B2 (both evaluated only in step 2) Mention briefly the methodology and budget even in Part B1 (better chance to assess the scientific approach)
Clear and logical presentation (keep the recommended length)
Make use of the evaluation criteria (use them as title/subtitle)
Make the project "easy to read and attractive" Use paragraphs instead of long text
Use figures, charts whenever possible (colours)
Give timeline and show you did your homework (references/literature)
Describe accurately the requested budget vs. the proposed research (resources)
Rumours1. Ask for more money, the reviewers will anyhow cut it down
2. I need preliminary results
NOT true,
1. but unexplained or non-motivated requests can be cut down
2. if you have preliminary results include them, if they are absent, explain the "hypothesis" show support in literature
Tips 3- The project
│ 44
As important as your project (almost)
Clear and logical presentation (list all relevant facts)
"guide the reviewer"
Have a Researcher ID that can be generated on the web of science
Submit the web address in the application
If you know that you have gaps or other issues in your CV (e.g. co-authored publications), explain them
Give trend (if possible)
Describe accurately any other activity which can indicate scientific maturity
Rumours One needs publications in Nature/Science/Cell/high IF journals to succeed
NOT true, however, 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
Tips 4- The CV
│ 45
Facts
Step 1: evaluation done by the Panel Members/PM (4-5/proposal) only, (remote) followed by panel discussions at the step 1 Panel Meeting
Step 2: evaluation done by remote reviewers (3-5) and Panel Members (3-4) (remote) + interview with the PI at step 2 Panel Meeting
You can exclude a reviewer (competitor, personal problems, etc.) including a PM
Panel members are selected by the Scientific Council (ScC) based on their scientific excellence and demonstrated outstanding scientific achievements
Remote reviewers (RR) are proposed by the Panel Members and approved by the ScC
All RRs are selected based on their scientific excellence and expertise
The list of all PMs is published at the end of the Calls, Panel Chairs are published before the Panel Meeting
Tips 5- The evaluation (1)
│ 46
TipsThink through your project, have a logical and clear step by step description
Explain risks if you can identify them and have a contingency plan
"Guide the reviewer", use evaluation criteria as title/subtitle
Rumours
1.There is request to include PMs from all Member States in the panels, not all are competent
2.PMs are generalists, with only few real experts, those can influence the panel decision
3.Expert PMs influence the panel decision by lobbying for their own country
NOT true, however,
4.if equal excellence/expertise is present, a positive discrimination might be applied (considering gender, grantee, geographic location, etc.)
5.PMs are excellent scientists, all used to evaluate projects at national and international level
6.The panel meetings are assisted by ERC scientific officers and independent observers (including members of the Scientific Council) to assure equal treatment and objective evaluation
│
Tips 5- The evaluation (2)
│ 47
Show your interest and enthusiasm – to be remembered by the PMs
Have clear and representative slides ("Less is more"!), focus on SCIENCE!
Look at the panel and not to the wall/slides - to be remembered by the PMs
Bring additional slides on new supporting data, if you can/have
Answer all questions, if not sure ask back the question
Don't over-explain your CV
Keep the time
PRACTICE !!!!!
Rumours
1.Choose your Acronym in alphabetical order, interviews are planned after alphabet
2.Late PM interviews have less chance, PMs are tired
NOT true, however,
3. Easy to remember acronym helps identifying the project during discussions
4. Tiredness can be there, "shake" the PMs up, place a joke, a comment…
│
Tips 6- Interview
│ 48
Increasing your chances
Address all evaluation criteria carefully
Be clear when describing scientific excellence
Show your ability of thinking outside the box
Show the progress beyond the state-of-the-art
If you have supporting preliminary results, include them
Support (literature) & visualise your hypothesis, if possible use charts, tables, images
Show "proof of maturity", think through the research you propose, identify risks and propose
alternatives to reach the goal (contingency)
Be realistic with your goals (don't over-dimension the Work Plan)
Have a well presented CV
Choose the correct descriptors (key words), don't "overuse" them
Use your own key words
│ 49
Final tips
Interview
Practice in advance
Be prepared for scientific questions
bring extra slides for possible explanations
If you have new preliminary results, show them
Show your interest and enthusiasm
Redressing
Before Redressing: don't blame the evaluator, see what could you have
done/explain/present better
Diverting scientific opinion is not motivating a redress
An obvious mistake might result in a re-evaluation
│ 50
Typical reasons for rejection
Principal investigator• Insufficient track-record• Insufficient (potential for) independence• Insufficient experience in leading projects
Proposed project• Scope: Too narrow too broad/unfocussed• Incremental research• Collaborative project, several PIs• Work plan not detailed enough/unclear• Insufficient risk management
Interview• Discussions/addressing the questions• Presentation
│ 51
ERC homepage: http://erc.europa.eusubscribe to ERC newsletter and newsalerts
http://erc.europa.eu/keep-updated-ercNational Contact Points -
http://erc.europa.eu/national-contact-pointsCroatian ERC-NCP: Nina Sertic, tel +3851 4594 541, www.mzos.hr
Where to applyhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/index.html
follow us onhttps://www.facebook.com/EuropeanResearchCouncil
https://twitter.com/ERC_Research
Further information
Thank you for your attention & Good Luck with your future application
Elisabeth.Renney@ec.europa.eu
European ResearchCouncil
│ 53
Some take-home messages…. ERC Awards are:
• Very competitive: ~10% success rates
• Significant: €1.5M – €2.0M for Starters / Consolidators
• Bottom-up: Open to any topic
• Ambitious: Achieve or boost independence; form a group
• Looking for High-risk/ High-gain research
• Flexible: Can re-budget as necessary
• Portable: Can be moved anywhere in Europe
• Prestigious: Will boost a research career