European Research Council Starting Grants Deadline: 17 th October 2017 Mill Lane Lecture Theatre 11 th August 2017 Presenters: Bethan Hosking Jones and Andrea Salter Email: bethan.jones@admin.cam.ac.uk and Andrea.Salter@admin.cam.ac.uk
Agenda Introduction to ERC and Starting Grant scheme Bethan Hosking Jones, Office Hints and tips for putting together a competitive ERC Starting Grant application Dr Andrea Salter, Research Facilitator AHS/HSS Coffee break Insights from ERC Starting Grant holders Dr Ana Cvejic, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute -- StG 2015 (LS3) Dr Matthew Machin-Autenrieth, Faculty of Music -- StG 2017 (SH5) Summary and conclusion Bethan Hosking Jones, Office
Introduction to the ERC Bethan Hosking Jones, ERC Officer Office
Widening Participant, Science with and for Society ERC in H2020 FP7 H2020 1. People 1. Excellent Science - ERC - Future and Emerging Technologies - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions - Research Infrastructures European Institute of Innovation and Technology 2. Ideas (ERC) 2. Industrial Leadership - Leadership in enabling Industrial Technologies - Innovation in SMEs and Access to Risk Finance - Health and well-being EURATOM 3. Cooperation 4. Capacities 3. Grand Societal Challenges - European Bioeconomy Challenges - Energy - Climate - Societies - Transport Joint Research Centre - Security
The ERC Ideology The ERC s goal is to fund excellent PIs to explore the frontiers of research across all disciplinary fields. Think: Ground-breaking nature Potential impact on the frontiers of research Bottom up funding without pre-determined priorities Intellectual excellence PI and individual team Scientific excellence is the sole criterion on which ERC frontier research grants are awarded.
A brief apology Science = Research
ERC Schemes Starting Grant Eligibility 2-7 years from PhD Consolidator Grant 7 12 years from PhD Advanced Grant Significant track record in past 10 yrs Synergy Grant 2-4 PIs with competitive track records (depending on career stage StG/CoG/AdG) Proof of Concept 2017 Budget in m 605m 575m 565m N/A 20m Estimated number of grants 335 335 235 N/A 130 2018 Budget in m 581m 550m 450m 250m 20m Estimated number of grants 391 287 194 30 130 The budget will be split between the domains in proportion to the budgetary demand of the proposals assigned to each panel... Current/recent ERC grant holder
ERC Call Deadlines Starting Grant Consolidator Grant Advanced Grant Synergy Grant Publication date 3 August 2017 24 October 2017 17 May 2018 3 August 17 Deadlines 17 October 2017 15 February 2018 30 August 2018 14 November 2017 Planned dates for Step 1 results 14 May 2018 6 July 2018 29 January 2019 23 April 2018 Planned dates for Step 2 results 14 August 2018 30 November 2018 8 April 2019 29 August 2018 Planned dates for Step 3 results N/A N/A N/A 19 October 2018 Indicative date for GA signature 14 December 2018 30 March 2019 8 August 2019 19 February 2019 Indicative Start Date for Grant 1 January 2019 (+ 6 months) 1 April 2019 (+ 6 months) 1 September 2019 (+ 6 months) 1 March 2019 (+6 months)
ERC Starting Grant Scheme
What is an ERC Starting grant? The grants provide flexible, long-term funding to support excellent PIs, and their research teams, to pursue ground-breaking, high-risk/high-gain research. These are individual awards which enable an excellent Principal Investigator to start their own independent research team/programme and to transition from working under supervisor to truly independent research PIs must be 2 7 years from PhD prior to 1 January 2018 (indicative cut off dates of 1 Jan 11-31 Dec 15 inclusive) Referenced to date of award on PhD certificate Extensions to this window are possible see slide 15 Support for truly ambitious research projects at the frontier of research no predetermined priorities/disciplines...aims to empower individual researcher and provide the best settings to foster their creativity..
What will an ERC Starting grant fund? Financial Limit (*) 1 500 000 Duration Up to 5 years Additional 500,000 available if purchasing equipment, if PI is moving to EU or for access to large facilities PI Requirements PIs must spend 50% of their total working time on their project The PI must spend at least 50% of their time in EU/Associated Country Funding ELIGIBLE Personnel costs flexible team structure (see next slide) Equipment Consumables Use of facilities Travel and Subsistence Publication costs - Open access is a requirement INELIGIBLE Tuition and College Fees Exchange rate losses (*) Pro-rata for shorter grants
Individual Team Constitution of the Individual team is flexible to suit the demands of the project. Most commonly, PIs will lead small teams which include PostDocs, PhD Students, Senior Researchers, Technicians and Administrative Support as necessary. While it is possible to include researchers from other institutions if the project demands, it the majority of our ERC grants involve researchers just based at Cambridge. Fundamentally different to a traditional Network or Consortium - the ERC will not fund consortia! Beneficiary Host Institution PI Beneficiary Beneficiary
Applying for an ERC Starting Grant
ERC application restrictions Submission restrictions Proposal evaluated under Work Programme Evaluation Step Evaluation Score Can PI re-submit to StG/CoG/AdG in 2018? 2016 1 2 B C A B Yes No Yes Yes 2017 1 2 B C A B No No Yes Yes
Eligibility Criteria Who can apply? Applicants can be of any nationality, of any age and any gender. Applicants can reside in any country at the time of application, but... All PIs must conduct their ERC-funded research in an EU Member State/Associated Country. Starters must spend a minimum of 50% of their total working time on their project The PI must spend at least 50% of their time in the EU or an Associated Country. Starters must be between 2 7 years from the award of their PhD on 1/1/18. Eligibility windows can be extended for certain documented reasons:- Maternity leave 18+ months per child born before or after PhD Paternity leave documented actual leave taken before or after PhD Long-term illness, clinical training or national service documented actual leave taken after PhD o Note: No extension for periods of part-time word, non-research careers, travel etc.
Eligibility Criteria Who can apply? A competitive ERC Starting Grant applicant must have already shown the potential for research independence with at least one important publication as major author OR without the participation of their PhD Supervisor. Some appropriate benchmarks include:- Up to 5 publications as main author should be in major international journals/conference proceedings/monographs. Invited presentations at well-established international conferences Granted patents International recognition through prizes/awards/membership of wellregarded academies. Be realistic! Am I ready to apply?
Re-application restrictions The ERC has fore-warned that the Scientific Council plans to apply strict reapplication restrictions... Resubmission restrictions Evaluation Step 1 2 Evaluation Score Can PI submit to StG/CoG/AdG in 2019? Can PI submit to StG/CoG/AdG in 2020? B No Yes C No No A Yes Yes B Yes Yes Note: these details will be only be confirmed in the 2019 Work Programme.
Questions before applying
Structure of the Applications Part A Administrative Forms (completed directly online) A1 General Information about the project (including abstract and keywords) A2 Host Institution(s) information & PIC (one A2 form per institution) A3 Budget (summary financial information) A4 Ethics review table A5 Call-specific declarations Part B1 You and a summary of your proposal Proposal abstract Extended Synopsis (5 pages) Note: References are not included in Concise scientific proposal the page limit for your Extended Highlight the ground-breaking nature Synopsis. Discuss feasibility How does your proposal fit within the current work going on in your field? Curriculum Vitae including Funding ID (2 pages) Education Employment Fellowships/Awards Career Breaks Track Record (2 pages) Publications Prizes/awards Supervision of Grad students Teaching Activities Membership of Societies Collaborations Invited presentations Patents Funding ID (does not count in page limit) Current research grants On-going applications Remember : At Step 1, the reviewers only see B1 so all essential information must be covered in the synopsis
Structure of the Applications Part A Administrative Forms (completed directly online) Note: References are not Part B1 You and a summary of your proposal included in the page limit for your Research Proposal Part B2 Research Proposal (15 pages) a) State-of-the-art and objectives Why is the proposed work important for your field? What impact will it have if successful / how will it open up new horizons/opportunities for science? What are the challenging/unconventional elements of your proposal? b) Methodology Provide a detailed methodology of how you re going to achieve your objectives. What are the key intermediate goals? How are you going to manage the risky elements / deal with mid-course corrections? How are you going to manage your team? c) Resources (including project costs) Justify your resources (but don t worry about the cost ) Describe your team and their roles remember to justify your time commitment and role too! Talk about what existing facilities/resources you ll have access too. Annexes Commitment of the Host Institution letter PhD Certificate, and (if applicable) evidence of extensions Ethical Issues Annex (if applicable)
Assessment of ERC Starting Grant Applications
ERC 2018 Panels Social Sciences and Humanities SH1 Individuals, Markets and Organisations SH2 Institutions, Values, Environment and Space SH3 The Social World, Diversity and Population SH4 The Human Mind and Its Complexity SH5 Cultures and Cultural Production SH6 The Study of the Human Past Life Sciences LS1 Molecular and Structural Biology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics LS2 Genetics, Omics, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology LS3 Cellular and Developmental Biology LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology and Endocrinology LS5 Neurosciences and Neural Disorders LS6 Immunity and Infection LS7 Diagnostics, Therapies, Applied Medical Technology and Public Health LS8 Evolutionary, Population and Environmental Biology LS9 Applied Life Sciences, Biotechnology and Molecular and Biosystems Engineering
ERC 2018 Panels Physical Sciences PE1 Mathematics PE2 Fundamental Constituents of Matter PE3 Condensed Matter Physics PE4 Physical and Analytical Chemical Sciences PE5 Synthetic Chemistry and Materials PE6 Computer Science and Informatics PE7 Systems and Communication Engineering PE8 Products and Processes Engineering PE9 Universe Sciences If your project is truly interdisciplinary then you are able to select two panels to consider you application. More details about the specific topics covered by each panel can be found in the 2018 ERC Work Programme and the 2018 StG and CoG Guide for Applicants Please refer to these documents before selecting your panel(s). PE10 Earth System Science
Who evaluates proposals? Panel members: Typically 600 Panel Members involved per call High level researchers Recruited by Scientific Council, from all over the world About 10-15 members per panel, plus chair person 70% of members will be the same as 2 years ago (List of 2016 panel members) EU USA Other Remote referees: Typically 2000 per call Nominated in Step 1 by panel 7% 7% Each evaluates only a small number of proposals at step 2 only 86%
The Assessment Process Eligibility Check STEP 2- Evaluation STEP 1 - Evaluation Assessment by Panel Part B1 only Remote review by Panel and external experts Parts B1 AND B2 Interviews of PIs (StG & CoG only) Panel meeting and ranking Panel meeting and ranking Applicants informed of Step 1 outcome Applicants informed of Step 2 outcome Grade B or C Feedback to applicants no reapplication in 2019 Grade A Continue to Step 2 No feedback to applicants Grade A Funded, if budget allows Grade B Not funded Reapplication possible in 2019
The Evaluation Outcomes Step 1 A. is sufficient quality to pass to step 2 of the evaluation B. is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to step 2 of the evaluation C. is not of sufficient quality to pass to step 2 of the evaluation Step 2 A. fully meets the ERC s excellence criterion and is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are available. B. meets some but not all elements of the ERC s excellence criterion and will not be funded.
Hints and Tips Dr Andrea Salter, Research Facilitator Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
What are the reviewers asked to review? The ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility of the project are central Ground-breaking nature and potential impact of the project The proposed project addresses important challenges and is high risk/high gain. The objectives are ambitious and beyond state of the art (e.g. novel concepts and approaches or development between/across disciplines). Scientific approach 1. The Research Project The outlined scientific approach is feasible bearing in mind the extent that the proposed research is high risk/high gain (B1) The extent to which the proposed and work arrangements are appropriate to achieving project goals (B2) The proposal involves the development of novel methodology (B2) The proposed timescales and resources are necessary and properly justified (B2)
The competitive Research Project? hints & tips Structure your proposal to address each of the evaluation criteria - use the ERC s terminology explicitly Consider what excites you about the research and convey this in your application Explain how the research will open new horizons or opportunities Think about your audience and remember to explain UK-specific terminology Provide a clear, concise work-plan, giving details of any intermediate goals. Take the pulse of your field, choose and clearly define an unmet need, think interdisciplinary Explain what each team member is doing (and their background/ recruitment profile) Clearly explain how you will manage and disseminate your project Don t forget the role and requirements of open data and ethics
Justify the resources you need for your research proposal and ensure the resources are appropriate. Have you included all staff costs? You can use data, graphs, photos and pictures where appropriate to visualise your ideas Should strike a balance between showing the experts in your field that you know your stuff, and engaging the non-experts Balance your vision with a strong, confident plan and good project structure Projects with a risky/new methodology are welcomed, as long as there is a good reason for trying it out and a potentially high reward The proposal should be easy and enjoyable to read not just about the science! Specific activities promoting equal opportunities or gender balance or covering the gender dimension of research funded by the ERC can be considered as eligible costs where these costs are necessary for the implementation of the action. Remember: research idea should be of foundational significance, original, coherent, with key concepts unpacked and explained.
What are the reviewers asked to review? 2. The Principal Investigator PIs Excellence (intellectual capacity), Creativity and Commitment are central Intellectual Capacity and Creativity The PI demonstrates their ability to propose and conduct ground-breaking research. The PI provides evidence of creative independent thinking. The PI s achievements have typically gone beyond the state-of-the-art. Commitment The PI demonstrates the necessary level of commitment to the project s execution and willingness to devote a significant amount of time to the project: 50% PI working time PI will work for minimum of 50% time in EU Member State or Associated Country. Ensure every criteria clearly addressed! Reviewers are asked to choose : Fully agree / Agree partially / Disagree partially/ Strongly disagree
The Competitive PI? hints and tips Must have already shown potential for research independence and evidence of maturity. Sell yourself! Remember the Funding ID section in the CV is important Make sure you address the full requirements of the track record, and consider what makes you stand out Clarify specific points to strengthen your application and give additional relevant details Explain anything that is UK specific The evaluators will review the PI on the basis of their experience and information the PI provides on the application form
Again, refer explicitly to the evaluation criteria If you refer to journal impact factors, state which one you are using Provide specific details of prizes, citation data for publications, project management experience, papers at conferences, mentoring of students, management of teams etc. Pack the Track Record with evidence about your achievements panels are more likely to give an ambitious project the go-ahead if they trust the PI, and are convinced of your credibility as an excellent researcher/project leader. Explain how you are exactly the right (and only) person to undertake this particular project, at this specific moment in time. Demonstrate relevant expertise by highlighting your key publications in areas relevant to proposal narrativize your track record, commenting on your selected relevant publications to date.
B1 Extended Synopsis (5 pages) hints & tips Sell your research project! Show enthusiasm, explain what excites you about your research, explain how the project will open new horizons or opportunities. Sell the intellectual dream! Establish clear objectives and research questions and show how these break ground intellectually by briefly contextualising them in relevant academic literature Demonstrate feasibility of proposal and address high risk/high gain aspect don t leave this solely for B2! Clear, concise, readable and accessible yet knowledgeable (only the Extended Synopsis is evaluated at Stage 1) Briefly explain work plan and what each team member will be doing and how this all comes together to achieve project objectives (provide more detail in B2) Give details of main project outputs, deliverables and how these will be disseminated (take a step-bystep approach to this in B2, including more detail of intermediate goals) Pay attention to matters of Researcher Integrity know your competitors, what is the state of play and why is your idea and scientific approach outstanding? Are there related projects which the ERC or Horizon 2020 more broadly have previously funded? Check out the CORDIS database!
B1 CV and Track Record hints & tips Remember to address the full requirement of the track record - refer explicitly to the criteria used in the Information for Applicants and Work Programme documents according to PI career stage and don t be afraid to use ERC terms/phrases Highlight your best achievements. Avoid British understatement I am an excellent researcher! Include a wide range of research highlights, especially those which show international standing and wider impact of research and provide evidence for your statements. Explain anything that is unique to your country or particularly specific to your field remember, reviewers will be from a wide range of countries and may be generalists in your area. Website, research blog or podcasts? Add a link to it but remember to keep it UP TO DATE Remember, you need to let the reviewers know why YOU and why NOW? Ask as many people as possible to review it... Remember: career breaks or gaps in your track record need to be clearly explained! Sell yourself!
B2 Research Proposal (15 pages) hints & tips Fully address all three sections of the Research Proposal: strike a balance between detail on State of the Art and Objectives, Methodology and justifying timescale and resources. Be clear on work plan between PI and team members, selection of case studies, team structure & composition, necessary skills profile, and provide a plan for leading team a clear sense of the overall project is needed, not discrete parts; clear plan for fostering team member intellectual synergies to achieve overall project goals Audience matters! Ensure balance between showing reviewers you know the area and also engaging non-experts Clear outputs, target (and name) specific key journals in field show how these are designed to have maximum impact on the research field? Balance your vision with a strong, confident plan and good project structure position yourselves as the only PI who could lead such a project
Look at past examples! Start with the basics details (so that generalists can understand) go in to more depth. Consider writing the full description of the proposal (Part B2 Section 2) first! Ask colleagues from different fields to review it. Novel methodology Readable by generalists Multi/inter disciplinary element Be ambitious (but feasible) My great idea High risk (with continge ncy) State-of-theart research, pushing boundaries of discipline(s) Novelty, innovation High gain/ groundbreaking Be enthusiastic, positive and demonstrate a clear vision (and language) Make sure to use key words Think of a catch acronym! If possible and appropriate, mention the contribution of the planned research to EU policy objectives!
In Summary... The Process The PI Digest the Guide for applicants and ERC Work Present the very best of your CV and track record so Programme, see also FAQs you demonstrate that you are extremely well Ask colleagues from a variety of fields for input qualified to deliver the project. Start early...you will always run out of time! Highlight the impact of your past work on the Check the submission process of your institution...it research field through things such as highly cited won t just be a case of you hitting the submit papers and/or lots of invitations to international button! conferences The Project Demonstrate your international research excellence Demonstrate the ground-breaking nature of the if this isn t obvious from your publication record, proposed research try to find some other way of highlighting this. Try to be highly innovative and/or interdisciplinary Highlight experience in leading research staff and Go out on a limb to be high risk/high gain raising funding. Ensure your scientific approach and feasibility are very The Peace of Mind.. well described Very clear with detailed research team tasks and There s a lot of support out there, you just need to contingency plan ask!
Questions?????????????????
Coffee time!
Insights from ERC Starting Grant holders Dr Ana Cvejic, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute StG 2015 (LS3) Dr Matthew Machin-Autenrieth, Faculty of Music StG 2017 (SH5)
Taking today forward Bethan Hosking Jones, ERC Officer Office
How to apply Register for access to the EC s Participant Portal Visit the Funding Opportunities Page and find the link to the relevant call and create your application using the Portal s Submission Service Note: You can amend the Abstract and the Acronym up until final submission. Ensure you use the University s official PIC number (999977172) and add Renata Schaeffer (h2020@admin.cam.ac.uk) as Host Contact Work with your Department/School contacts to develop costings to ensure your budget covers all your requirements. Complete the A Forms online and upload your B1, B2 and supporting documents as PDFs Note: ensure you use the templates provided by the ERC s and adhere to ERC s naming conventions for files. Research Office will require 5 working days to check your application Host Institute Support letter will be provided once your application is approved. Validate and submit your proposal. Note: Up unto the call closing, it is possible to submit updates to your application which will over-write previous versions.
Sources of Information ERC 2018 Work Programme information about the ERC s funding schemes for 2018 StG 2018 Information for Applicants detailed guidance on the Starting (StG) scheme and advice on completing a StG application Guide for Peer Reviewers Starting 2017 information about the review process and guidelines *2018 version not available at time of presentation* Office website ERC website UKRO website UK s National Contact Point
Questions?????????????????
Event organisers Bethan Hosking Jones ERC Officer, Office bethan.jones@admin.cam.ac.uk Andrea Salter Research Facilitator, Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences andrea.salter@admin.cam.ac.uk
Success Rates Call Applications Received Of Which Evaluated Funded Success Rate Starting Grant 2007 9,167 8,787 299 3.4% Starting Grant 2009 2,503 2,392 245 10.2% FP7 Starting Grant 2010 2,873 2,767 436 15.8% Starting Grant 2011 4,080 4,005 485 12.1% Starting Grant 2012 4,741 4652 566 12.2% Starting Grant 2013 3,329 3,266 300 9.2% Starting Grant 2014 3,273 3,204 375 11.5 UCAM 47 46 9 19.57% Starting Grant 2015 2,920 2,862 291 10.2% H2020 UCAM 37 17 7 20% Starting Grant 2016 2935?? 325 11.1% UCAM 33 33 7 21.21% Starting Grant 2017???????? New info! UCAM 35 35 10 28.57%
Ethical self-assessment in ERC applications Initial ethical self assessment is contained within A Forms Simple yes/no answers to a series of potential ethical issues If applicant indicates yes to any of the issues, a box opens up for applicant to provide additional details (e.g. lists of species etc.) as well as indicating a page within the B1/B2/additional documents where the issues are addressed in more detail. Not essential to have all ethical approvals/licenses in place at the time of application but it is important to demonstrate understanding of how you will comply with ethical requirements once the grant is up and running. Annex 3 to the Information for Applicants contains a lot of details about the ethical self assessment process and the ERC s requirements. Ethical review process runs along side the scientific review process successful applicants can be asked to provide additional information/clarifications on ethical issues after they have been notified that their application has been successful.
Success Rates ERC H2020 schemes to-date StG CoG AdG International UCAM International UCAM International UCAM 2014 11.7% 19.6% 14.9% 37.5% 8.5% 16.2% 2015 12.2% 18.9% 14.9% 38.9% 14.4% 29.0% 2016 11.3% 21.2% 13.8% 23.8% 9.6% 17.5% 2017? 28.6%???? Overall 11.7% 22.1% 14.5% 32.8% 10.8% 20.9%
Number of ERC H2020 Awards 2014 2015 2016 Institution Country StG CoG AdG StG CoG AdG StG CoG AdG Total National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) FR 20 25 6 14 17 11 16 25 11 145 Max Planck Society DE 16 7 8 11 6 9 11 6 13 87 University of Cambridge UK 9 12 6 7 7 8 6 5 7 67 University of Oxford UK 6 7 3 6 11 10 8 9 4 64 University College London UK 3 9 3 4 9 7 5 2 6 48 University of Copenhagen DK 8 5 2 6 8 1 4 6 2 42 University of Amsterdam NL 7 5 2 7 4 1 7 4 3 40 University of Edinburgh UK 3 6 3 4 5 8 6 1 3 39
StG 2016 call preliminary statistics Life Sciences Physical Sciences & Engineering Social Sciences & Humanities Submitted Proposals Selected Proposals Success rate 869 99 11.4 1288 146 11.3 778 80 10.3 Total 2935 325 11.1
Number of proposals awarded by age of grantee
# funded proposals % success rate StG 2014 Success rates by number of years since PhD StG 2014 # years past PhD by gender 160 140 120 100 90 80 70 100 60 80 60 40 20 50 40 30 20 10 Female Male Male Success rate Female Success rate 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Number of years since PhD 0
Funded projects H2020 StG15 Funded projects by Country of HI
Funded projects H2020 StG15 Funded projects in UK and UCAM UCAM success rate for UCAM 2015 step1 46% step 2 41% overall 19% 2016 step1 30% step 2 70% overall 21%
Lessons learned from Cambridge s submissions to the first H2020 StG call Analysis by Dr Pepe Urbano
Common pitfalls Negative reviewers comments about the Project No state-of-the-art elements to the project Ground breaking nature overstated No cutting-edge research Not innovative/not well demonstrated that objectives are beyond the state of the art. Project is not well explained Confusing, we don t know what the PI wants No clear structure of the research and the tasks/roles of researchers Project focus formulated in very broad and general terms No concrete research goals Not convincing scientific approach Not novel, plenty of competitors Not new, somebody else is working on that. More studies using the same methods. No conceptual breakthrough, just an extension of previous work. Not innovative, a part of a standard ongoing research Feasibility is in question Project is overambitious No contingency plan No description of approaches or tasks Missing plan of work
Things to aim for... Positive reviewers comments about successful projects Project is well explained Applicant explained the challenging goals in a very understandable and easy to follow way. This is typical for people having a very deep understanding of the discussed issues. The research plan is detailed with the objectives, deliverables and sub-tasks well delineated -gives clear responsibilities to all team members involved. Project is state-of-the-art This is one of the most challenging problems in the field The proposal involves the development of novel features and methodologies This is an important and timely topic of a clear ground-breaking nature. High risk/high gain the level of ambition is high, with associated risks. However, the risks are analysed and proposal also includes topics that are very likely to work. The proposal is ambitious and risky. Nevertheless, the methodology taken is appropriate, with alternatives approaches considered when necessary to mitigate the risks. Feasibility / risks are considered The proposal is potentially paradigm-changing and thus of utmost ambition. But I think it is worth taking this risk, because of the potential gain. The proposed project is a high risk project. But this is mitigated by the fact that the applicant has already a strong expertise in this domain and strong contingency plans are in place.
Common pitfalls Negative reviewers comments about the PI Track record is not outstanding No senior papers yet PI track record excellent but not outstanding Not many publications in the primary topic of the proposal Very limited invitations to international conferences Low citation index No ongoing grants No external funding Not having a grant or having one unrelated to the proposal topic Limited independence Most of the papers from his/her PhD Very limited international experience no international collaborations evident. Not enough experience to manage large projects/groups Not experienced at team management No experience in leading research staff No leadership experience at all No experience of raising funding
Things to aim for... Positive reviewers comments about successful PIs Demonstrated Expertise These are established methods where the PI has considerable expertise. The approach seems clearly feasible, as it builds strongly upon previous accomplishments of the PI. Although the applicant is less experienced in this field, she is well aware of recent progresses and is in contact with leading scientists. She will hire postdocs with complementary skills. The PI is full of unconventional and novel approaches. Outstanding Track Record The PI has highly cited papers in prestigious journals. The PI has an impressive cv and track record that qualify her extremely well for the research of this project. Track record with 27 publications and near 1000 citations. He has given 12 invited talks in international conferences. The PI is the world-leading expert on The CV of the PI is regular, about 650 citations
Things to aim for... Positive reviewers comments about successful PIs Demonstrated Independence The PI has demonstrated independence and leadership in her research career. She has limited experience in supervision of graduate students and post-doctoral fellows but is evidently working to establish her independence Her publications provide indications of ability to produce creative, independent thinking. The proposed which shows very creative independent thinking. Most of the papers are from his/her PhD but they are considerably more independent than their publication list suggests.
In Summary... The Process Digest the Guide for applicants Ask colleagues from a variety of fields for input Start early...you will always run out of time! Check the submission process of your institution...it won t just be a case of you hitting the submit button! The Project Demonstrate the ground-breaking nature of the proposed research Try to be highly innovative and/or interdisciplinary Go out on a limb to be high risk/high gain Ensure your scientific approach and feasibility are very well described Very clear with detailed research team tasks and contingency plan The PI Present the very best of your CV and track record so you demonstrate that you are extremely well qualified to deliver the project. Highlight the impact of your past work on the research field through things such as highly cited papers and/or lots of invitations to international conferences Demonstrate your independence if this isn t obvious from your publication record, try to find some other way of highlighting this. Highlight experience in leading research staff and raising funding. The Peace of Mind.. There s a lot of support out there, you just need to ask!