The European Research Council

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The European Research Council"

Nigel Walker
6 years ago
Views:

1 The European Research Council Zagreb, 10/11/2015 Dr. Doc. Elisabeth Renney 1 ERC Scientific Department, LS7 Panel Coordinator

2 Outline What do we offer? Funding schemes, opportunities The Evaluation Procedure/ERC Modus operandi How to prepare and submit a grant proposal Tips, rumours and the "truth" 2

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 3

4 ERC Grant schemes Starting Grants starters (2-7 years after PhD) up to 2.0 M for 5 years Consolidator Grants consolidators (7-12 years after PhD) up to 2.75 M for 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 4

5 Researchers career development and complementary funding schemes ERC AdG - Advanced ERC CoG Consolidators Senior Professor ERC StG - Starters Marie Curie Junior Professor/ Junior Researcher Associated Professor Full Professor Erasmus Post-docs Students Post Graduates 5

6 Creative research freedom of the individual ERC grantee 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 6

7 Host institution 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 7

8 ERC Evaluation process (StG, CoG & AdG) Panel structure : 3 domains and 25 panels Each panel : Panel Chair and 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 8

9 Submission of proposals Proposal structure PART A online forms PART B1 submitted as.pdf A1 A2 A3 Proposal and PI info Host Institution info Budget Extended Synopsis 5 pages CV 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) 9

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 10

11 Evaluation of proposals Evaluation procedure STEP 1 STEP 2 Remote assessment by Panel members of section 1 Synopsis and PI Remote assessment by Panel members and reviewers of full proposals Panel meeting Panel meeting + interview (StG+ CoG) Proposals retained for step 2 Ranked list of proposals Feedback to applicants Redress 11

12 Main features in 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 12

13 Evaluation Criteria Excellence as sole criterion, to apply to: Research Project Ground breaking nature Potential impact Scientific Approach Principle Investigator (PI) Intellectual capacity Creativity Commitment 13

14 Extensions of eligibility window 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 14

15 Who evaluates the proposals? Panel members: typically 600 PMs involved per call High-level scientists Recruited by ScC from all over the world About members plus chair person USA (7%) Other (7%) Remote Referees: typically 2000 / call Each evaluate only a small number of proposals 15

UK DE FR IT NL ES SE BE AT DK FI PL HU PT CZ EL IESI 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 # panel members/panel chairs ERC

16 UK DE FR IT NL ES SE BE AT DK FI PL HU PT CZ EL IESI 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 # panel members/panel chairs ERC panel members by country of HI and gender (7) ERC Starting, Consolidator and Advanced grant calls ERC STG COG ADG panel members by host institution country M (71 %) F (29 %) EU Associate countries International 16

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 17

18 Feedback to applicants Step 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 18

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 19

20 # Applicants ERC StG, CoG, AdG 2014 Age of applicants at call publication date AdG 2014 CoG 2014 StG Age of applicants at call publication date 20

21 # grantees StG, CoG, and AdG 2014 Age of grantee Age of 2014 grantees ADG COG STG age of grantee 21

22 # funded proposals StG 2014 Grantees Years past PhD 160 STG 2014 # years passed PhD Years passed phd 22 22

23 # funded proposals StG 2014 Grantees Years past PhD STG 2014 # years passed PhD by gender M (253) F (122) Female success rate (11.4 %) Male success rate (11.7 %) % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 23

24 # funded proposals CoG 2014 Grantees Years past PhD COG 2014 # funded proposals and success rates by years past PhD and gender # years past PhD M (268) F (104) F success rate (15.2 %) M success rate (14.9 %) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 24

25 DE UK FR NL IL ES IT DK AT BE IE FI SE NO PT HU TR CZ RO CH RS # of grantees ERC Starting Grant 2014 Call Mobility: Incoming and staying grantees Grantee staying in the country "non-european" Grantee staying in the country "European" Grantee moving to the country Grantee in the country, national of the country country of host institution 25

26 UK DE FR ES NL IT BE IL DK PT SE AT IE HU CZ NO FI CY EE EL HR IS LU RO # of grantees ERC Consolidator Grant 2014 Call Mobility: Incoming and staying grantees Grantee stayng in the country "non-european" Grantee staying in the country "European" Grantee moving to the country Grantee in the country, national of the country Country of host institution 26

27 # of grantees ERC Advanced Grant 2014 Call Mobility: Incoming and staying grantees Grantee staying in the country "non European" Grantee staying in the country "European" Grantee moving to the country 29 Grantee in the country, national of the country UK DE FR CH NL ES IT DK BE IL AT NO SE FI PT CZ IE Country of host institution 27

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 28

29 Croatian Panel Members/Chairs 2008/2010/2012/2014-AdG, SH4 2009/2011/2013/2015-AdG, LS7 2009/2011/2013-StG, LS AdG, LS CoG, SH StG, LS6, PE5 29

30 # submissions submissions from Croatian HI (106), Croatian nationals (156, not shown) ADG COG STG call 30

31 Other Croatia related info 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 31

32 ERC in practice tips, rumours and the truth PLEASE DARE ASKING!!!!! 32

KEY FACTS Legislation ERC Mission ERC supports novel ideas, creative minds (wherever they

as the only criterion ERC Grant is a proof of one's excellence / Quality label More than 5

33 KEY FACTS Legislation ERC Mission 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 Grant is a proof of one's excellence / Quality label More than scientists were successful More than were not successful Is there a key to success? 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 33

34 ERC modus operandi 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 34

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? 35

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 36

37 Tips - once the Call and supporting documents are published 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 37

38 Submission of Proposals Differences in Part B1 and Part B2 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 38

39 Submission of Proposals Differences 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 39

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 40

41 Tips 1- Host Institution 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 41

42 Tips 2- Submission; Descriptors and free keywords 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 necessary E.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) Rumours 1. 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 42

43 Tips 3- The project 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) Rumours 1. 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 43

44 Tips 4- The CV 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 44

45 Tips 5- The evaluation (1) 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 45

46 Tips 5- The evaluation (2) Tips Think 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, 1.if equal excellence/expertise is present, a positive discrimination might be applied (considering gender, grantee, geographic location, etc.) 2.PMs are excellent scientists, all used to evaluate projects at national and international level 3.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 46

47 Tips 6- Interview 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, 1. Easy to remember acronym helps identifying the project during discussions 2. Tiredness can be there, "shake" the PMs up, place a joke, a comment 47

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 48

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 49

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 50

hr Where to apply http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/index.

51 Further information ERC homepage: subscribe to ERC newsletter and newsalerts National Contact Points - Croatian ERC-NCP: Nina Sertic, tel , Where to apply follow us on

52 European ResearchCouncil Thank you for your attention & Good Luck with your future application

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 53

European Research Council

European Research Council Preparing an ERC application and the Evaluation Process Dr Alejandro Martin Hobdey Head of Unit Call Coordination 4 November 2015 Budapest 1 Outline What is the ERC? What does