1. Application Workshop Marie Curie Fellowships 12th July 2010

2. Programme Welcome & Introduction Welcome & Introduction Structure of Fellowship Proposal Structure of Fellowship Proposal Part B: examples, assessors’ comments Part B: examples, assessors’ comments Success stories Success stories EPSS system EPSS system Referees Referees Proposal coordinator/scientist in charge Proposal coordinator/scientist in charge Evaluation process Evaluation process Final Hints & Tips Final Hints & Tips Q & A Q & A

3. Tell us….. –Who you are –Your organisation –Your project Your project

4. Marie Curie Fellowships in a nutshell FP7 is designed to achieve the Lisbon and Barcelona objectives and complement activities in Member States. FP7 is designed to achieve the Lisbon and Barcelona objectives and complement activities in Member States. Support to the European Research Area Support to the European Research Area Administered by the Department for Education and Culture. Administered by the Department for Education and Culture.

5. Objectives and Policy Context Make Europe more attractive to researchers Make Europe more attractive to researchers Encouraging transnational and intersectoral mobility to create a European labour market for researchers Encouraging transnational and intersectoral mobility to create a European labour market for researchers Encouraging people to become researchers Encouraging people to become researchers Attract researchers to Europe Attract researchers to Europe

6. Individual Fellowships Aimed at Experienced Researchers Aimed at Experienced Researchers Focus on skills diversification and knowledge sharing Focus on skills diversification and knowledge sharing Three categories: IEF, IIF & IOF Three categories: IEF, IIF & IOF Fellow can apply for one fellowship per call. Fellow can apply for one fellowship per call. Host can host as many fellows as they want. Host can host as many fellows as they want.

7. Individual Fellowships - Part B Cover Page, Table of Contents Cover Page, Table of Contents S & T Quality S & T Quality Training/Transfer of Knowledge Training/Transfer of Knowledge Researcher Researcher Implementation Implementation Impact Impact

8. Evaluation criterion: Scientific / tech. quality Interdisciplinary/mulitidisciplinary aspects Interdisciplinary/mulitidisciplinary aspects Research methodology Research methodology Originality/Innovation Originality/Innovation Timeliness/Relevance Timeliness/Relevance Host scientific expertise Host scientific expertise Quality of the group/supervisor Quality of the group/supervisor 3/525%

9. Assessor Comments S&T Quality Positive Feedback Research is timely with number of innovations beyond „state of the art ‟ Research methodology is detailed and clearly explained Negative Feedback The techniques to be used are well known in the field so not very innovative Research methodology not given in full detail

10. Training – IEF/IOF Clarity and quality of the training Clarity and quality of the training Relevance and quality of additional scientific training Relevance and quality of additional scientific training Host expertise in training Host expertise in training Your opportunity to make a difference! 3/515%

11. Assessor Comments Training Negative Feedback A research project with no training element The host asserts skills without presenting convincing evidence of competence (your examples?) The range of techniques described would clearly be valuable to the researcher, but the lack of detailed description does not inspire confidence in the quality of training available

12. Assessor Comments Training Positive feedback Contemplates training courses specifically designed for postdoctoral fellows Research training objectives are clearly identified, described, and planned Both participants will benefit from their mutual collaboration, not only through direct joint work, but also through the interaction with the whole research group

13. Transfer of Knowledge - IEF Transferring knowledge to European host and/or bringing knowledge to Europe Transferring knowledge to European host and/or bringing knowledge to Europe Clarity and quality of the transfer of knowledge objectives Clarity and quality of the transfer of knowledge objectives No threshold15%

14. Assessor Comments Transfer of Knowledge Positive feedback Fellow has range of relevant knowledge and expertise to be brought to the project Negative feedback Objective are research objectives with out specifying the unique knowledge the fellow will bring

15. Researcher Research experience Research experience Patents/publications/teaching Patents/publications/teaching Independent thinking and leadership (ability to transfer knowledge for IIF) Independent thinking and leadership (ability to transfer knowledge for IIF) Match between profile and project Match between profile and project Potential – IOF, IEF (acquire new knowledge, promotion) Potential – IOF, IEF (acquire new knowledge, promotion) 4/525%

16. Points to consider Relevant industrial experience Relevant industrial experience Generic skills base (your examples) Generic skills base (your examples) Tangible impact on other research Tangible impact on other research Triggered new research (your examples) Triggered new research (your examples) Referees Referees

17. Assessor Comments Researcher (1) Negative Feedback CV lacks data on record Continuation of previous research so exposure to new approaches is lacking References were similar and from one institution

18. Assessor Comments Researcher (2) Positive feedback Clear proof of independent thinking during PhD and the possibility to progress and develop Clear evidence of leadership qualities Potential to acquire new knowledge is high Good references and clear list of Prizes, Awards, Lectures, etc

19. Implementation Quality of infrastructure/facilities Quality of infrastructure/facilities Practical arrangements Practical arrangements Feasibility and credibility of project Feasibility and credibility of project Practical and administrative arrangements Practical and administrative arrangements No threshold15%

20. Points to consider Include work plan and milestones Include work plan and milestones Support to fellow in moving to the foreign country (visas, language courses, your examples) Support to fellow in moving to the foreign country (visas, language courses, your examples) Host infrastructure and access Host infrastructure and access Many applications are scored down on this sub-criteria!

21. Assessor Comments Implementation (1) Negative Feedback Practical arrangements for management, administration, and support for hosting the fellow are not well described The amount of work and timeline may be too ambitious

22. Assessor Comments Implementation (2) Positive Feedback The facilities of the host are appropriate for the research project The research activities, milestones, foreseen deliverables and schedule is very comprehensive, well described and appropriate

23. Impact Potential of acquiring competencies during the fellowship Potential of acquiring competencies during the fellowship Contribution to career development Contribution to career development Contribution to European excellence and competitiveness Contribution to European excellence and competitiveness Benefit to European Research Area Benefit to European Research Area Potential for long term collaboration between EU and other countries (IOF/IIF) Potential for long term collaboration between EU and other countries (IOF/IIF) 3.5/520%

24. Tips IEF – application in the industry IEF – application in the industry Links between research and industry Links between research and industry Look at policy documents per area of research Look at policy documents per area of research

25. Assessor Comments Impact Positive Feedback Contribution to European excellence and competitiveness is well presented Skill acquired during the project will greatly contribute to the fellow ‟ s career development Negative Feedback Lack of career development plan for the applicant Lack of details means it is difficult to judge whether a independent position is achievable

26. Questions?

27. Dr Graeme Hayes School of Languages and Social Sciences Aston University

28.  Two-year Intra-European Fellowship  Centre de recherches sur l’action politique en Europe, IEP de Rennes, France  Social science, non-laboratory  Opposition to nuclear power in the 1970s/80s and now: changing institutions, discourses, strategies  Relationship between public policy and civil society  Starts September 2010

29.  Initial contact with partner over possibility of project, November 2008  AWM Travel Grant to support FP7 proposals, June 2009  Completed application July, submitted August  Notification of evaluation results, end November 2009  Invitation to Negotiate, 22 December 2009  Grant Agreement Preparation form submitted by Host, February 2010  Commission has not yet issued a contract…

30.  Score out of 5 issued for each section Criterion 3. RESEARCHER (award) (Threshold 4.00/5.00) Mark: 4.80 Weight: 0.25 - The applicant has already a good research experience in the field of this project. - There is a good match between his profile and the project. - The positions of editor, chair or convenor in various of the fellow’s research initiatives demonstrate good leadership qualities. - The professional maturity of the applicant is evident. Weaknesses of the proposal - The publication is unconvincingly presented. Score out of 5 issued for each section  Strengths and weaknesses clearly listed  575 out of 1857 eligible projects to be funded…

31.  Follow the guidelines  Write as if for a en educated/interested broadsheet reader  Use bullet points / indenting, etc.  Importance of fit between researcher and host, project and place  The project is important  The information you need may not be provided the way you need it by your partner  You can’t rely on your partner to do the work  The process is lengthy and time consuming  Use existing documentation sources for the tricky bits (impact, ethics)  Contact your referees early  Get your colleagues to read it through for you

32.  B1: Link context to project to analysis to outcomes  Demonstrate the wider transferable interest of your project  Give condensed (300 word) biographies of your partners  B3: Values are more important than lists of achievements  B4: Set out the workplan graphically; link skills acquisition to objectives to outcomes

33.  Total value of the award is €222,047.20  Of which the host institution receives €17,539.20 for overheads  The money does not go through my institution’s books!

34. International Incoming Fellowship (IIF) SHIRMAN Ecology and Evolution of SHIfting Range MArgiNs in Glacier-fed Streams

35. Glacier-fed streams provide an ideal ecological observatory for monitoring the dynamics of the leading edges of shifting ranges as glaciers rapidly recede and make available new stream habitat. The main objective of the proposed research is to use a novel blend of evolutionary and ecological tools to evaluate key influences on the shifting locations of range margins in glacier-fed streams. A secondary objective is to infer the outcome of upward range shifts on regional-scale patterns of stream biodiversity.

36. Evaluation Criterion Weighting (%)Threshold Score out of 5 S&T Quality253 Transfer of Knowledge 15N/A Researcher254 Implementation15N/A Impact20N/A

37. Criterion 3 - Research experience 1.Research results including patents, publications, teaching etc 2. Independent thinking and leadership qualities, and capacity to transfer knowledge 3. Match between the proposed fellow's profile and project

39. Ten papers published or in press Two previous postdoc appointments – 1 in Oregon (2006-2008) and 1 in Zurich (2008-2009). Eight fellowships and awards Extensive teaching experience and supervised 7 undergraduate projects. 15 presentations at national/international meetings and 11 invited seminars. Reviewing and extensive committee membership

40. The applicant has a broad range of experience in both ecological and evolutionary methodologies, creative study design and implementation in the field and laboratory, and successful scientific collaborations with many international colleagues and has had two postdoctoral positions. Her research results have been published in peer-reviewed journals. All records show that her skills and experience are well suited for the proposed project. Independent thinking and leadership potential demonstrated. Good match between profile and potential. OVERALL COMMENT - A very good candidate who shows potential as future research leader – SCORE - 4.8 out of 5.0 - WEIGHT 25% = 24

41. Criterion 1 - Scientific/technological quality, including any interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal. 1.- Research methodology 2.- Originality and innovative nature of the project, and relationship to the 'state of the art' of research in the field 3.- Timeliness and relevance of the project 4.- Host scientific expertise in the field 5.- Quality of the group/researchers in charge

42. Strengths of the proposal Very well presented proposal with a clear overarching objective to link two major approaches – one evolutionary and one ecosystem-based – in order to provide a synthetic understanding of the dynamics of shifting range margins within a glacier-fed stream system. Very good planned methodology and very timely given the climate change debate and range shifts. The host institution is particularly strong in the physical, chemical and biological sciences (We talked about conferences hosted etc.). The researcher in charge is a renowned scientist with proven record of publications and citations.

43. Weaknesses of the proposal The amount of work and the project length may be a problem OVERALL COMMENT Very good and interesting proposal, likely to be successful Score 4.6 out of 5 – Weight: 25% = 23

44. Criterion 2 – Transfer of Knowledge 1.Potential of transferring knowledge to European host and/or bring knowledge to Europe – 2. Clarity and quality of the transfer of knowledge objectives

45. Strengths of the proposal: Her background in research and experience with different methods and tools will be an asset. Applicant’s expertise in developing novel solutions to ecological questions, allows strong potential for knowledge transfer at many levels. Overall comments: The strong application gives the idea that the applicant is strongly motivated and is likely to achieve a substantial knowledge transfer. Overall Score = 4.7 out of 5 Weight: 15% = 14.1

46. Criterion 4 - Implementation 1.Quality of infrastructure / facilities and International collaborations of host - 2. Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the scientific project. 3. Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan - Practical and administrative arrangements, and support for the hosting of the fellow

47. Detailed description of the host infrastructure and its international cooperation. A clear work plan is presented. Expected indirect (apart from papers) products of the research have been specified. All facilities will be provided. Weaknesses: The part of practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the scientific project lacks some detail. Overall comments: Generally very good to excellent. Score 4.6 out of 5. Weight: 15% = 13.8

48. Criterion 5 - Impact 1.Potential for creating long term collaborations and mutually beneficial co-operation between Europe and the third country. 2. Contribution to European excellence and European Competitiveness. 3. Contribution to the socio-economic development of the Developing Countries or emerging and transition economies by transfer of knowledge and human capacity building (where relevant) 4. Benefit of the mobility to the European research area

49. Strengths of the proposal: The fellow has demonstrated capabilities in this field, thus it is expected that long-term cooperation will be set up. The project could stimulate research in other types of ecological systems, which could contribute to European excellence and European competitiveness. Weaknesses: The part about benefit of the mobility to the European research area needs more detail. Score 4.5 out of 5. Weighting 20% = 18

50. Overall Score = 92.9 / 100 (Threshold 70) Main points re success?

51. Summary Identification of a very strong candidate. Funds from Advantage West Midlands to meet Deb and complete proposal. Xavier Rodde ( Research Support & EU/international research funding ) Development of novel methods Strong development of home institution as base for IIF Collaboration and international links particularly for future Knowledge transfer and impact

52. Marie Curie Stuart Russon EU Funding Advisor Submission and Evaluation 12th July 2010

53. Submission and evaluation EPSS system EPSS system Referees Referees Proposal coordinator/scientist in charge Proposal coordinator/scientist in charge Evaluation process Evaluation process

54. ..... or Electronic Proposal Submission Service Proposals must be submitted electronically using EPSS Proposals must be submitted electronically using EPSS Proposals arriving by any other means will not be evaluated Proposals arriving by any other means will not be evaluated EPSS

55. Use of the EPSS system Only one login and password is provided Only one login and password is provided Proposal to be completed by the ‘proposal coordinator’ Proposal to be completed by the ‘proposal coordinator’ The experienced researcher should register as the proposal coordinator The experienced researcher should register as the proposal coordinator

56. EPSS – role of the Proposal Coordinator Register your organisation’s interest Register your organisation’s interest Complete Part A of the proposal Complete Part A of the proposal Download the document template for writing Part B Download the document template for writing Part B Upload the completed Part B Upload the completed Part B Submit the complete proposal Part A and Part B Submit the complete proposal Part A and Part B Nominate referees Nominate referees

57. Accessing EPSS Access EPSS from the call page http://www.epss-fp7.org/epss Access EPSS from the call page http://www.epss-fp7.org/epss http://www.epss-fp7.org/epss The EPSS Preparation and Submission Guide is available at http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/epss_e n.html The EPSS Preparation and Submission Guide is available at http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/epss_e n.html http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/epss_e n.html http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/epss_e n.html Submit early and often Submit early and often

58. Referees Up to 3 referees can be nominated Up to 3 referees can be nominated Proposal coordinator nominates referee Proposal coordinator nominates referee Provide referees before deadline Provide referees before deadline Referee issued with login and password Referee issued with login and password

59. Proposal Coordinator The proposal coordinator is the single point of contact between participants and the REA Before the call deadline the experienced researcher is considered ‘proposal coordinator’

60. Scientist in Charge The scientist team leader located at host organisation The scientist team leader located at host organisation Will supervise the researcher during the project Will supervise the researcher during the project After the call deadline the scientist in charge will be the only single contact point. After the call deadline the scientist in charge will be the only single contact point. Experienced researcher and scientist in charge cannot be the same person Experienced researcher and scientist in charge cannot be the same person

61. Evaluation process

62. Evaluation Assessed by at least 3 experts Assessed by at least 3 experts Overall threshold is 70% Overall threshold is 70% Do not exceed page limits Do not exceed page limits Do not make any assumptions Do not make any assumptions

63. Final checks Check eligibility Check eligibility Correct font size and page limitations Correct font size and page limitations The deadline is important! The deadline is important!

64. Timetable Deadline for submission of proposals 17 August 2010 at 17.00.00 Brussels local time Deadline for submission of proposals 17 August 2010 at 17.00.00 Brussels local time Evaluation of proposals 04-29 October 2010 Evaluation of proposals 04-29 October 2010 Evaluation Summary Reports sent to proposal coordinators End of November 2010 Evaluation Summary Reports sent to proposal coordinators End of November 2010 Invitation letter to successful coordinators to launch grant agreement negotiations with the REA services December 2010 Invitation letter to successful coordinators to launch grant agreement negotiations with the REA services December 2010 Letter to unsuccessful applicants From December 2010 Letter to unsuccessful applicants From December 2010 Signature of first grant agreements From March 2011 Signature of first grant agreements From March 2011

65. Hints and tips! Have clear aims and objectives Have clear aims and objectives Good rationale Good rationale What you want to do, with whom and why? What you want to do, with whom and why? European added-value European added-value Must relate to FP7 objectives and priorities Must relate to FP7 objectives and priorities Communicate clearly in the application form – keep it simple Communicate clearly in the application form – keep it simple Management and Monitoring Management and Monitoring Impact and benefits Impact and benefits