CIG 2013 Call. Dr. Jennifer Brennan Marie Curie NCP and National Delegate

Transcription

1 CIG 2013 Call Dr. Jennifer Brennan Marie Curie NCP and National Delegate

2 During webinar please queries to Presentation and Q&A report will be available online

3 People Work Programme 2013 Final Work Programme released July billion of funding Calls run from Nov 2012 to Aug 2013 FINAL CALLS OF FP7!!!

4 What are the Marie Curie Actions? Career Training Marie Curie Actions Mobility Intellectual Capital Enter the Researcher Profession Stay in Europe Attracting international researchers Knowledge Transfer International & Inter-Sectoral Cooperation All research areas funded No thematic Calls No Priority Areas

5 CIG: Career Integration Grants* Encouraging Researchers to establish themselves in Europe Attracting and retaining the best talents in Europe Improving their prospects for longterm integration in Europe Counteracting brain drain * Amalgamation of previous ERG and IRG programmes

6 CIG 2013 Call -Facts and Figures Call Deadline: Rolling Call two evaluation deadlines: 7th March th September 2013 FINAL CALL IN FP7 Budget M 40 Project Duration Up to 4 years Project Budget 25,000 p.a. on cofunding basis

7 How does it work? Eligible Researcher applies with Eligible Host Organisation

8 Eligible Host Organisations (not exhaustive) National Organisations e.g. Universities, Research Centres Commercial Enterprises e.g. Multi-nationals, esp. SMEs Non-Profits / Charities International European Interest Organisations European Commission JRC International Organisations e.g. NGOs, Trusts e.g. CERN, EMBL The Joint Research Centre e.g. WHO, UNESCO

9 Eligible Researchers 1. Experienced Researchers (PhD holder OR Degree* plus 4 years of Research Experience ) 2. Have not benefitted from a Reintegration Grant under FP6 or FP7 3. Comply with the Mobility Rule(not residing/having main activity in country of host organisation for > 12 months in the 3 years before the Call deadline)** * The degree that would allow you to begin PhD studies in either the country in which the degree was awarded or the country where the proposed CIG fellowship would be hosted. ** Possible to apply with current host organisation, as long as Mobility Rule is observed.

10 What is the EU funding Contribution? Flat Rate of 25,000 per annum For up to 48 months Linked to duration of the award E.g. the EU Contribution is 100,000 for a 48-month award, 87,500 for a 42 month award Allocated on the principle of Co-Financing Intended to support the project costs in global terms Not intended to cover 100% of the cost of integrating the researcher The host institution is bound* to contribute to the overall costs of the project *Articles 109 and 113 of the Financial Regulation for FP7

11 What can the EU Contribution be spent on? Should be used for the benefit of the researcher, to improve the conditions for establishing themselves in a permanent research career in Europe Examples of eligible costs: Contribution towards Salary Research costs (consumables, materials etc.) Travel (conferences, collaborations etc.) Life-long training and career development (training courses etc.) Part/full cost of a research student/postdoc/research assistant/technician

12 Who is a CIG award suitable for? The awardee must have an employment contract to cover at least the duration of the award; the award is suitable for: Postdoctoral (or more senior) Researchers Must have co-financing from another source Can be external or internal funding New Academic Staff Co-financing could be salary (paid by host from core funding) and any other funding (external or internal) to support the research. R&D Staff in Industry/Other Sectors (NGOs etc) Co-financing could be salary (paid by host from core funding) and any other funding (external or internal) to support the research. Remember the Mobility Rule!

13 CIG Statistics -Ireland 2011 CIG Deadline CIG Deadline CIG Deadline CIG Deadline 2 Evaluated Selected Success rate 40% 25% 25% 30% IE success rates always above European average

14 Evaluation of your Application

15 Evaluation Process Mar/Sep 2013 ~ 3 months Eligibility Check Remote Evaluation* Consensus Meetings Selection of Proposals Jun/Dec * Evaluated by at least 3 international experts Results Announcement (includes Feedback) Grant Negotiation takes ~ 3 months Could commence award in Sep 2013/Feb 2014 Defer for up to 8 months

16 Evaluation Panels Chemistry Physics Mathematics Life Sciences Economic Sciences ICT and Engineering Social Sciences & Humanities Earth & Environmental Sciences Applications are assessed in these 8 Panels Call success is equalised across the Panels

17 Evaluation Criteria Criterion Threshold (Marksout of 5) Weighting Priority (ex-aequo) Researcher 3 30% 1 S&T Quality 3 30% 2 Impact 3 25% 3 Implementation 3 15% 4 Overall threshold of 70%

18 S&T Quality Researcher Implementation Impact Research and Technological Quality Research career potential Quality of the host(facilities, infrastructure etc.) Contribution to research excellence by attracting/retaining researchers Appropriateness of Research Methodology Research and Technological Quality of previous research** Feasibility and credibility of the project Potential and quality of the researcher s long term professional integration in Europe* Originality and Innovation Timeliness and Relevance of the project Independent thinking and leadership qualities Match between the fellow s profile and the project Management: Implementation and Management of the Project* Potential of transferring knowledge to the host Capacity for collaboration with other countries Dissemination Plans Outreach Activities* * Sub-criterion to be evaluated in the light of the Charter & Code ** Leaves of absence > 1 year not taken into account

19 Charter & Code 40 principles Charter:framework for career management for researchers Code:promotes open and transparent recruitment and appraisal Embedded in Evaluation Criteria for all MC Actions Added to the Rules for Participation for Horizon

20 Human Resources Strategy for Researchers Next-step -encourage mainstreaming of C&C in research entities policies 5-Step Self-Evaluation Procedure Results in Commission acknowledgment (permission to use HR Excellence logo) UCD and UL have received Commission acknowledgement Also taking part to-date: 4 Universities (DCU, TCD, NUIG, UCC) 6 IOTs (AIT, CIT, DKIT, LIT, ITSligo, WIT) Teagasc, RCSI and DIAS

21 Resubmissions Resubmitting does not guarantee success: Each proposal is evaluated on it s own merits, in comparison with the other proposal in that Call Resubmissions are handled as follows: In the A forms, in the section provided, indicate that the proposal is a resubmission The evaluators are not given access to the previous proposal Evaluation Summary Report from previous proposal is placed in a sealed envelope After the Consensus Meeting is over and the ESR and score for the new proposal has been finalised, the sealed envelope is opened Any markeddifference in score between the new proposal and the old one must be explained in the ESR for the new one

22 Writing an Application Practical Aspects

23 Getting Started Preparing to Write Download the call documents from the Participant Portal* 2013 Work Programme Guide for Applicants (call specific) Read them from cover to cover! Evaluation Criteria Overall objective of the Action (Opening pages of GfAand 2013 Work Programme) Preparing to Submit All-electronic submission using Submission & Evaluation of Proposals Service (SEP) Register with SEP for the correct Call (CIG 2013)* Download Proposal Template Musthave the Participant Identification Code (PIC) for your organisation Use Search Facility Organisation can apply for PIC (temporary one issued to allow submission) The deadline is 17:00 Brussels time! *

24 Online submission system New online system for 2013 SEP - Submission and Evaluation of Proposals Replaces the old EPSS system Access is via the Participant Portal Start on the page for the 2013 CIG Call P7-PEOPLE-2013-CIG&specificProgram=PEOPLE#wlp_call_FP7 Will get your own ECAS login or should use existing one if you have it SEP is simple to use, but is different from EPSS 10 minute guide available at tent/docs/submission/10_minutes_guide_to_the_submission.pdf;efp7_session_id=vpth QGJHvJh1hjB0NhnKN2vDvpP5FZclsyLx2nV05mMgbv7DYDxw!

25 Proposal Content Part A (Administrative - Electronic Forms) Part B (Proposal -PDF document)

26 Part A -Administrative Forms Prepared electronically within SEP system (editable PDF files) Form Title Content A1 Summary/ GeneralInformation e.g. Acronym, Title, Selection of Evaluation Panel, Project Duration A2 Information on the Host organisation e.g.pic (mandatory), legal name, contact details, name of Contact Point,.. A3 Information on the Researcher e.g. name, contact details, nationality, qualifications, place of residence for previous 3 years.

27 Form A2 -Administrative Forms Who is the Contact Point? The person who will be sent the evaluation results and who will be responsible for negotiation of the grant (if successful) The applicant is not normally the Contact Point Suggestion: Research Officer, Department Secretary, Finance Officer etc. Talk to your Research Office about whom to nominate as the Contact Person Should the applicant be the Contact Point, REA will ask for a letter of support for this, only during negotiation of a successful project.

28 Proposal Part B Content B1 B2 S & T Quality (7 pages) Quality of the Researcher (5 pages) Use the template that can be downloaded from SEP B3 B4 Implementation (4 pages) Impact (5 pages) 21 pages max B1 B4: pages exceeding the limit will not be evaluated B5 Ethical Aspects (No page limit)

29 B5: Ethical Aspects Ethics is considered essential by the Commission in the research activities that it funds The Commission will not fund: 1. Research on Human Embryo/Foetus In proposals where the following are involved, the Commission may carry out their own ethical review: 2. Research on Humans 3. Privacy 4. Research on Animals 5. Research Involving Developing Countries 6. Dual Use (possibly military or terrorist use) Every funding application must include a completed Ethical Issues Table The table is divided into sections using the 6 headings above Indicating ethical issues in the table does not automatically lead to an ethical review it helps the Evaluators to decide if one is needed

30 Referees Assessments Can invite up to three persons to provide a reference for you Not required, but can help in the Researcher evaluation criterion E.g. Independent thinking and leadership qualities, research quality Add the referees details in SEP online system They receive an inviting them to provide a reference (applicant is copied on the ) They access SEP via the Participant Portal and upload their reference before the Call Deadline. The applicant does not see the content of the reference.

31 Advice from a Marie Curie Evaluator

32 Evaluation Criteria General Comments Address all the sub-criteria for each criterion listed in the call Some reviewers take a checklist approach to marking -> use the template provided in SEP Be aware of the overall weighting of each criterion S&T quality is not the most important criterion Need to score well in each criterion in order to have a chance of being selected for funding Do not cut-and-paste generic off the shelf material into the Impact section e.g. material taken directly from EU policy documents, websites etc. Minimise scientific jargon and write in a clear readable style

33 S & T Quality S&T objectives make them clear and up front Make sure the state of the art is up to date Write in a style that is accessible to the non-expert, The majority of evaluators will not be expert in the specific subject area of the proposal Highlight originality and any innovative aspect of the proposal Are there any gender aspects to this research?

34 Researcher Need excellent publication/conference participation record appropriate to the researcher s career stage Would expect more from a senior researcher than an earlycareer researcher The candidate needs to be a good match to the proposed research Provide good evidence of the candidate s ability to think/act independently Good reference letters can help can have up to three

35 Implementation Include a detailed and well thought out project implementation plan, including research and other activities too A good Gantt Chart is very useful for this Make sure the work plan is feasible Good project management protocols need to be in place If host has or is working towards HR Excellence in Research logo, then say so! Demonstrates commitment to the Charter & Code How will IP be managed? New Factsheet on IP in Marie Curie Actions

36 Impact Emphasise the potential impact of the fellowship on the candidates career development Need to understand the relevant policy documents about the European Research Area (ERA), most recent is: ERA Memorandum of Understanding (2012); 5 key priorities List of documents at Don t simply cut and paste from them or pay lip service by naming them in the document Present an analysis of how your CIG fits with the objectives in the documents Open Access is one of the ERA 5 priorities IE has rian.ie, only national open access platform in Europe Since Oct 2012, IE has a national policy statement on open access Outreach is promoting the project to the general public: it is NOTpromoting the project to other scientists (by attending conferences etc.)

37 Expected impact of CIG 2013 From People Work Programme 2013 Reinforcing human research potential in the European Researcher Area (ERA) by: Helping mobile researchers integrate into a long-term research position Improving the research potential of these individuals by providing a substantial contribution to their research budget Enhancing knowledge transfer and trans-national collaboration both within and from outside Europe: European Host Organisation benefits from the knowledge that the researcher brings with them from their previous position Researchers bring with them a network of international collaborators

38 Indicative Budget Overall total costs of the project, regardless of the source of funding, including the expected EU contribution and the host's own budget, with no distinction As the project must be described in full regardless of the source of funding, the relevance of the EU financial contribution for the implementation of the project itself should be clearly highlighted.

39 Sample Indicative Budget Cost Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 TOTAL Applicant's Salary 1 40,650 40,650 40,650 40, ,600 PhD Student Stipend 2 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 72,000 PhD Student Fees 2 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 22,000 TechnicianSalary (50% FTE) 3 18,100 18,100 18,100 18,100 72,400 Materials & Consumables ,400 Travel Equipment TOTAL 95,350 91,350 91,850 91, , UCD Salary Scales Assistant Lecturer SFI Grant Applications Budget Policy 3. UCD Salary Scales Technical Officer 2011 Could provide footnotes with hyperlinks to budget supporting documents.

40 Final Advice from your NCP! Most NB:ensure you include all the information requested in the proposal template (Annex 4 of the Guide for Applicants) Add a short Executive Summary at the beginning of the S&T section Summarise the overall fellowship, not just the research project Ensure to keep within the page limits If the proposal is a resubmission, could outline improvements made Do not underestimate the importance of Outreach activities see Outreach Guidelines doc for details. Ask a colleague to read through your proposal and do a mock evaluation

41 More Advice from your NCP If in doubt, ask your Research Officer or National Contact Point for clarification! Can also post queries directly to the Commission using the Research Enquiries Service If you want to avail of a pre-submission proposal check by your Research Office, allow enough time for feedback. Regularly upload preliminary versions of your proposal, and don t forget to hit submit! Keep the deadline - 5pm Brussels time means 4pm Irish time!!

42 Marie Curie Individual Fellowships IEF Intra-European Fellowships for Career Development IOF International Outgoing Fellowships IIF International Incoming Fellowships Research Career Development From Europe* to the World From the World to Europe* 16% success rate (2012) 16% success rate (2012) 13% success rate (2012) Funding includes salary, research materials etc. Deadline 14 th August 2013 Read more at Webinar in June 2013 * The Member States and Associated countries (e.g. Switzerland, Israel, Norway)

43 Questions? Please your queries to All material will be made available for download afterwards Visit our new website Join our Linkedin Group Marie Curie Office Ireland