1. Evaluator for Marie Curie EU Postdoctoral Fellowships Life Science Panel IEF - Intra-European Fellowships IIF- International Incoming Fellowships IOF - International Outgoing Fellowships

2. Marie Curie Evaluator Becoming an evaluator The evaluation process My opinion on successful applications

3. How I became an evaluator Initially through the Irish Marie Curie National Contact Point – Dr Jennifer Brennan – mariecurie@iua.ie Benefits: Gain insight into what constitutes a successful application Networking See how the Brussels Evaluation factory works

4. Success rate of Marie Curie Fellowships 20% applications are funded (e.g. 2013 IEF budget €134 million) Last year in Life Sciences Panel there were 1900 applications....and 270 evaluators: 170 IEF, 100 IIF and 100 IOF funded

5. Time line of the evaluation process - Remote Phase Application submission date is mid-August Early September evaluators indicate conflicts of interest (based on institution and personnel) & research proposals in their area of expertise (based on research title). Each evaluator is assigned a project officer (15 evaluators per project officer) Mid September proposals made available to evaluators with 2 weeks to write individual assessment reports (scores and comments) - 20 proposals per evaluator with mix of IEF, IOF and IIF - 3 evaluators per proposal Then evaluators have a week to prepare a preliminary consensus assessment report - Each evaluator is rapporteur for 7 proposals

6. Time line of the evaluation process - Brussels A 30 minute meeting is held for EACH application with the 3 evaluators At the meeting the comments and final scores are decided The rapporteur writes final consensus report and gets final approval from all 3 evaluators and project officer Report is submitted and ranking occurs according to score

7. BOYD-AOIFE 11:30 - 12:00 Monday 15 October4/7 12:05 - 12:35 Monday 15 October4/35 12:40 - 13:10 Monday 15 October7/23 15:05 - 15:35 Monday 15 October4/48 15:40 - 16:10 Monday 15 October4/35 16:30 - 17:00 Monday 15 October6/10 17:05 - 17:35 Monday 15 October4/48Rapporteur 17:40 - 18:10 Monday 15 October6/50 09:00 - 09:30 Tuesday 16 October4/48 10:55 - 11:25 Tuesday 16 October7/14Rapporteur 11:30 - 12:00 Tuesday 16 October6/34Rapporteur 12:40 - 13:10 Tuesday 16 October7/6Rapporteur 15:05 - 15:35 Tuesday 16 October5/49 17:05 - 17:35 Tuesday 16 October6/50 09:35 - 10:05 Wednesday 17 October7/121Rapporteur 10:55 - 11:25 Wednesday 17 October6/34 14:30 - 15:00 Wednesday 17 October6/6 15:05 - 15:35 Wednesday 17 October6/11Rapporteur 15:40 - 16:10 Wednesday 17 October7/48 16:30 - 17:00 Wednesday 17 October5/31 17:05 - 17:35 Wednesday 17 October5/7

8. Evaluator's Assessment Follows the criteria described in the Guide to Applicants Follows the criteria to the letter To be successful each criterium and sub-criterium must be very good/excellent

11. Range of Scores 20% applications are funded In my experience with Life Science panel - 40% of proposals score above 85% Successful score required for funding >89% Researcher and Science&Technology sections must be excellent Training/Transfer of Knowledge, Implementation and Impact will be the deciding sections for whether your proposal gets a high enough score to be funded

12. Recommendations 1st recommendation: become familiar with the guidelines early and thoroughly read the "annex" for a full description of which information should be included in each sub-criterium section 2nd recommendation: supervisor be predominant writer of application

13. Recommendations Make it as easy as possible for the evaluator to find the necessary information in the appropriate section Format the application exactly according to each criterium, sub-criterium and item in the sub-criterium Use bullet points, lists, tables, figures wherever possible, rather than text Do not exceed page limits Do not use tiny font size to squeeze more words into the page limit

14. Researcher This section is more than just a CV. The descriptive parts are important too. Must have excellent track record for their career stage (most successful applicants will have some post-doc experience, but not all do) Publication record is very important International lab visits are well regarded Applications score well where the impact of the applicant's previous research has been well described.

15. Science Innovative, Novel and/or State-of-the-art projects score very well Projects that are challenging, but feasible, score very well Projects that will have broad significance (short-term or long-term) outside of just one narrow research topic score better The project design and significance of the project must be understandable to an evaluator who is NOT an expert in that specific topic, but is an expert in the broad research area Don't disregard the description of the host expertise. Often poorly described. Provide evidence relevant to the research topic of the application) (e.g. # papers, # grants, # researchers). Include both host group and University expertise.

16. Training/Transfer of Knowledge Proposals score well which provide details on a local level (ie host group) AND on a university-wide level Details MUST be personalised to the researcher/project. Generic descriptions score poorly Information must be specific and detailed (e.g. name the person who will provide training with a description of their expertise) Description of host expertise often weakly described. Give evidence (e.g. # PhDs graduated, postdocs supervised, researcher destinations in the research topic of the application). For IIF a Transfer of Knowledge section replaces Training section. This is ToK from researcher to host group. Researcher must bring knowledge that is unavailable or limited in the EU. Sometimes this may be more broadly interpreted to mean bringing knowledge that is unavailable or limited in the host country or host University.

17. Implementation and Impact Provide details on a local AND on a university-wide level Details MUST be personalised to the researcher/project Information must be specific and detailed Impact - Seems to be often written as an after thought! Impact to applicant and impact to EU Information backed up with evidence and precise details scores well (e.g. host group's experience with previous industrial collaborations/IP). Present a clear defined planned path for the future

18. Marie Curie Evaluator Becoming an evaluator The evaluation process My opinion on successful applications