I wrote How to write a successful ERC StG proposal Christian Forssén S u b a t o m i c P h y s i c s, Chalmers Univ. of Tech.
My ERC StG proposal - abridged During my PhD studies I studied few-body quantum systems and did a very good job. During my postdoc at LLNL I worked with some of the best known experts in computational many-body physics and learned the methodology of high-performance computing. Now I want to bring computational nuclear physics to Europe while combining with clever few-body techniques. Our method will be adapted to related, contemporary physics problems. Collaborators and networks in both the US and Europe will be engaged.
How a proposal could look like During my PhD I worked on A (and did a good job on it) As a postdoc (preferably not in Göteborg) I learned B, and can prove that I did. Now I want to do A+B; or C, which is a consequence of A+B and have a network of collaborators doing d + e + f (but not A+B).
The ERC guiding principles Scientific excellence is the sole selection criterion Projects in all fields of research are eligible for funding Investigator-driven research projects led by a single PI are supported
Frontier research Bottom-up projects: what are the most pressing questions in your research field? What needs to be discovered now? How can you open up new horizons, or close existing gaps? Ground-breaking nature of your research is important High risk/high gain projects are welcome* *But see remark later
ERC peer-review panel structure 25 panels grouped into three disciplinary domains. Your proposal will end up in one of these panels, consisting of a chairperson and 10+ panel members. In addition, the ERC works with remote referees. These bring the necessary specialised expertise for the 2nd stage.
Evaluation procedure - First step First step: Only 5-page scientific profile and 5-page project summary will be evaluated. Evaluation by 3-4 peer reviewers from the relevant panel. Graded (scale: 0-4) on (i) PI profile and (ii) project. So the five-page summary should make the reviewer curious about the research, and it should be understandable for a non-expert.
Evaluation procedure - Second step Full proposal will be evaluated. Evaluation by panel members and external experts. Graded (scale: 0-4) on (i) PI profile and (ii) project. So the 15-page extended project description should provide more details on the project, explain the setup of the research team and the methods that will be applied.
Questions that need to be answered Why this research? Why now? Why you? Why in Göteborg?
Expressed in another way Excellence Novelty Credibility
Excellence Should be reflected not only in the CV, but also in the proposal itself. For example: Write the introduction emphasising your contribution. But don t overdo it and make sure to give proper references and credit.
Example: Excellence Referee #2 (with some help...):
Novelty The main idea should be novel and significant. Stay away from marginal or incremental work. Combinations such as: Experiments + theory; Inter-disciplinary; Multi-disciplinary
Example: Novelty Referee #4:
Credibility High risk / High gain... with high credibility Build on your proven strengths, and move forward to new grounds. Make sure you have at least some preliminary results. Make this clear in the project summary and describe in more detail in the extended project description. Do NOT pretend to be what you are not.
Example: Credibility Referee #6:
Budget and time-table Write a reliable time-table and make sure that the first two years are solid. Explain and justify all budget items. Unjustified items will be cut. Ask for assistance from the experts.
Editing Include figures Do not use jargon Try to keep some consistent style Use as much help as you can to make your proposal clearer and stronger. BUT - it s your proposal. Stay close to your own ideas!
Persistence Submit and Good luck!... and if you don t succeed try again
Possible mistakes Project not really excellent or innovative. State-of-the-art in the field is not properly described. Research methodology is archaic. Project objectives remain vague. Bad match between project and profile.
Reviewers comments The referee comments can provide excellent feedback for next application round. The potential impact of the proposed research is not very clear though. The project is interesting but quite specialized. The applicability of the proposed methods to cold gases should be discussed convincingly.