1. EVALUATING ERC AdG PROPOSALS - A Personal View – Dainis Dravins ─ Lund Observatory www.astro.lu.se/~dainis ERC Headquarters, Covent Garden, Brussels

2. ERC Advanced Grants

5. The referee perspective * First year: Fear of too many applications, fast-choice listing prepared based on bibliometrics * Two-part application may be wastful but is set by limits on referee availability * How to find external referees without connection to applicant organizations? Two acceptances require ~six invitations.

6. The referee perspective * Panel members are appointed for typically five years, but on an every-other-year schedule, i.e. there are two (sub-)panels that change places once a year. * This enables panel members to apply themselves (which they cannot do while serving) and also assures that returning proposals will be evaluated by a completely different panel the following year. * This enables panel members to apply themselves (which they cannot do while serving) and also assures that returning proposals will be evaluated by a completely different panel the following year.

7. Evaluating applications * Exact amount applied for practically does not matter: either all or nothing is awarded. (Although the extra 1 M€ for equipment up to 3.5 M€ could matter) * Name (acronym) of project actually does matter. This is referred to during handling; should be informative and ‘catchy’. * ~100 applications per panel, everyone reads everything. Need to stand out in the crowd.

8. Evaluating applications * Often consensus which ~1/3 of applications are ‘best’ but which are top 10% is somewhat random, often following some short comment. * Panel members are ‘generalists’. Many proposals lack a ‘popular’ introduction, making them rather incomprehensible. Do not fill pages with walls of text, but include figures.

9. Evaluating applications * Instructions ask for a detailed CV. Beyond a page or two, it is not likely to be read. * Instructions ask for detailed project plans but detailed overplanning loses credibility. * Some look like requests for institute running expenses. Panel members easily recognize these and promptly reject them.

10. Evaluating applications * Do not write “must have ERC funding to carry out…” – may kill application. * Credibility: Some topics are fashionable and similar proposals come from different groups. All of them want to employ new people. from the few familiar with this topic. But if the postdocs etc. are ‘good’, they may not be interested to work as ‘assistants’. All of them want to employ new people. from the few familiar with this topic. But if the postdocs etc. are ‘good’, they may not be interested to work as ‘assistants’.

11. ERC Advanced Grants

12. Issues for approved projects * ERC instructions speak about risky, daring novel projects. However, much of what is awarded actually is ‘more of the same’. * Relying on past performance in terms of awarded grants, publications etc., implies that the activity already is well established. (Maybe a fear in the beginning, that failed projects could cause bad publicity?)

13. Issues for approved projects * Geographic and linguistic bias: Arguably, the most serious issue with ERC grants. * Proposals are in English, proposals by applicants with a good command of it appear to have a clear advantage. * Often ‘those that already have will get more’; less risky to award to a group that already has been found worthy by others.

14. ERC Advanced Grants

15. ERC Advanced Grants 2014