The European Research Council

© Art & Build Architect / Montois Partners / credits: S. Brison

ERC Advanced Grant CallUlrike Kainz-Fernández

Call Coordination and Project Follow-Up

ERC Executive Agency

Vienna, FFG, June 2019

│ 9

ERC and Austria

│ 10

ERC Funded Projects by Country of HI

│ 11

Success Rate by Country of HI

│ 12

Signed grants in Austria

0 20 40 60

Universitaet WienInstitute of Science and Technology Austria

Technische Universitaet WienOesterreichische Akademie Der Wissenschaften

Forschungsinstitut für Molekulare PathologieUniversitaet Innsbruck

Institut für Molekulare BiotechnologieUniversitaet Fuer Bodenkultur Wien

CEMM - Forschungszentrum Molekulare MedizinMedizinische Universitaet Wien

Technische Universitaet GrazInternationales Institut für Angewandte SystemanalyseGregor-Mendel-Institut für Molekulare Pflanzenbiologie

Universitat LinzVeterinaermedizinische Universitaet Wien

Medizinische Universitat InnsbruckParis-Lodron-Universitat Salzburg

Universitaet GrazMontanuniversitaet LeobenWirtschaftsuniversitat Wien

Ludwig Boltzmann GesellschaftMaterials Center Leoben Forschung

Austrian Institute of TechnologyUniversitaet Klagenfurt

ADG

COG

STG

POC

│ 13

138 foreign grantees in AT (62% of all grantees in AT!)

84 Austrian grantees in AT

80 Austrian grantees abroad, mainly in DE, UK, and CH

High Proportion of Foreign Grantees in Austria

│ 14

ERC Evaluation procedure

Evaluation of Proposals: Review procedure for StG, CoG and AdG

Remote assessment by Panel members

of section 1 – PI and synopsis (part

B1)

Panel meeting

Proposals retained

for step 2:

Score A

STEP 1

Score:B or C

STEP 2

Remote assessment by Panel members

and reviewers of full proposal (B1+B2)

Panel meeting + interview (StG and CoG)

Ranked list of

proposals:

Score A

Score: B

Feedback toapplicants

│ 16

│ 17

Evaluation of Proposals: Review procedure for StG, CoG and AdG

Remote assessment by Panel members

of section 1 – PI and synopsis (part

B1)

Panel meeting

Proposals retained

for step 2:

Score A

STEP 1

Score:B or C

STEP 2

Remote assessment by Panel members

and reviewers of full proposal (B1+B2)

Panel meeting + interview (StG and CoG)

Ranked list of

proposals:

Score A

Score: B

Feedback toapplicants

Evaluation of Proposals: Review procedure for StG, CoG and AdG

Remote assessment by Panel members

of section 1 – PI and synopsis (part

B1)

Panel meeting

Proposals retained

for step 2:

Score A

STEP 1

Score:B or C

STEP 2

Remote assessment by Panel members

and reviewers of full proposal (B1+B2)

Panel meeting + interview (StG and CoG)

Ranked list of

proposals:

Score A

Score: B

Feedback toapplicants

In order to make the evaluation process more effective, the Scientific Council has introduced re-submission restrictions.

• you can apply next yearA(unfunded)

• you can apply next yearB• you have to wait 1 year

before re-applyingB• you have to wait 2

years before re-applyingC

STEP

2ST

EP 1

I did not get the grant, can I apply next

year?

Panel members: typically 400 PMs involved per call

High-level scientists

Nominated by the Scientific Council

worldwide

About 12-16 members

Steps 1 and 2

Remote Referees: typically 2000 / call

Step 2

EU and AssociatedCountries

(86%)

US (7%)

Other

(7%)

Who evaluates your proposal?

│ 25* Number of instances that experts of a certain country of origin are contributing to the ERC peer review

ERC Panel Members by

Country of HI and Gender

Averaged over

2007-2017 29% of

the ERC panel

members were

women

• Conflict of Interest

• Equal treatment

• Pay attention to career breaks

• Gender

• Cross-panel proposals

• HI not an evaluation criterion

• Feedback to Applicants

• Confidentiality

Key Messages to experts

Briefing to panel members

• Maintain reputation of ERC's peer

review evaluation and consistent

approach across domains and panels

• Do not go for incremental research –

look for risky proposals (when the risk

taking makes sense)

• Track record – pay attention to any career breaks and focus on listed

publications, for AdG on the last 10 years

• Quality of the panel’s feedback summarised in the panel comment is

essential: substantial message

│ 28

Preparing and submitting a Proposal

Research Project

• Is my project new, innovative, bringing in new solutions/theories?

• Does it promise to go substantially beyond the state of the art?

• Why is my project important? Think Big!

• How can I prove/support my case? Have I proven the project's feasibility?

• Is it timely? (Why wasn't it done in the past?)

• What's the risk? Have I proposed alternatives?

Preparing your proposalQuestions to ask when preparing part B1

Principal Investigator

• Why am I the best/only person to carry it out? Know your competitors

• Am I able to work independently, and to manage a 5-year project with a substantial budget?

• Am I internationally competitive?

• Have I shown my scientific leadership in my CV?

│ 30

Preparing an application Check the already Funded Projects

Menu

allows

searching

by Funding

Scheme,

Research

Area,

Country of

Host

Institution.

Descriptors and free keywords may influence:

Evaluation Panel

Panel members

Whether a cross-panel evaluation is

necessary

Preparing your proposal Choosing the descriptors

Physical Sciences & Engineering 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 Process Engineering

PE9 Universe Sciences

PE10 Earth System Science

Life Sciences LS1 Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, Structural

Biology 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 Applied Medical Technologies, Diagnostics,

Therapies and Public Health

LS8 Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology

LS9 Applied Life Sciences, Biotechnology and

Molecular and Biosystems Engineering

│ 35

Evaluation Panel Structure (WP2019)

Social Sciences and Humanities SH1 Individuals, Markets and Organisations

SH2 Institutions, Values, Environment and Space

SH3 The Social World, Diversity, Population

SH4 The Human Mind and Its Complexity

SH5 Cultures and Cultural Production

SH6 The Study of the Human Past

│ 36

Example: panel and descriptors

composition of the ERC evaluation panels are by nature multi-disciplinary

initial allocation of the proposal to a panel is based on the preference expressed by the applicant

when additional expertise required

• additional reviews by appropriate members of other panel(s) or additional remote experts

• reallocated to a different panel with the agreement of both panel chairs

Preparing your proposal Choosing the descriptors

│ 38

Preparing an applicationCheck past panel members for the call

PART A – administrative online forms

A1 Proposal and PI infoA2 Host Institution infoA3 Budget/Resources

PART B1 – submitted as .pdf

Abstract and Cross-domain explanation 1 p.Extended Synopsis 5 p.(Recommended Model) CV 2 p.Funding ID 1 p.Track Record 2 p.Annexes – submitted as .pdf

Statement of support of HI

If applicable:

₋ explanatory information on ethical issues

PART B2 – submitted as .pdf

Scientific Proposal 15 p.

Preparing your proposalStep 5 .. Start filling the different sections!

In Step 1: Panel members see only Part B1 of the proposal (prepare it

accordingly!)

Pay particular attention to the ground-breaking nature of the research

project State-of-the-art is not enough

Know your competitors – what is the state of play and why is your idea and

scientific approach outstanding?

Part B1: concise and clear presentation is crucial (not all evaluators are

experts in your field)

Outline of the methodological approach is recommended (feasibility

assessment)

Show your scientific independence in your CV (model CV provided in the

part B1 template)

Preparing your Proposal:Differences between Parts B1 and B2

In Step 2: Both Part B1 and B2 are read by Panel Members & Remote

Referees

In part B2 do not just repeat the synopsis, go into details

Provide sufficient details on methodology, work plan, selection

of case studies etc. (15 pages)

Preparing your Proposal:Differences between Parts B1 and B2

Explain hypothesis or provide

preliminary data (if exists)

Make sure you give full references

(excluded from page limits)

Check coherency of figures

Budget analysis carried out in Step 2 evaluation (meeting)

Panels have responsibility to ensure that resources requested are

reasonable and well justified

Panels do not 'micro-manage' project finances

Budget cuts need to be justified on a proposal by proposal basis (no

across-the-board cuts), but unexplained costs are often cut!

Panels to recommend a final maximum budget based on the resources

allocated/ removed

Ask for funding for Open Access – this is obligatory in Horizon 2020!

Preparing your Proposal:Part A3: Proposal budget considerations

The new online budget table

│ 43

• ONE budget line per beneficiary / linked third party

• All costs have to be described and justified in the text box below the budget table

• Justify requested resources / Explain involvement of team members

│ 44

• Organize explanations heading by heading (use terminology of the budget table)

• If you request additional funding - you must describe and justify this request clearly in a

separate paragraph

• Remember to list the PI’s time commitment!

Resources – the narrative part

… ERC funds 'frontier research', including applied

research

… publication record is not decisive in selection decisions

… the Host Institution is not an evaluation criterion

… no indication that native English speakers are more

likely to succeed

… the budget is distributed among the scientific panels

as a function of demand, thus submitting to particular

panels does neither increase nor decrease the chances

Contrary to what you may think…..

Success rate by panel

82 84 78

102

131

83

149

107

77

102

143139

118

153155

126

151

110119

86

122

94

130119

108

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0

50

100

150

200

LS

1

LS

2

LS

3

LS

4

LS

5

LS

6

LS

7

LS

8

LS

9

PE

1

PE

2

PE

3

PE

4

PE

5

PE

6

PE

7

PE

8

PE

9

PE

10

SH

1

SH

2

SH

3

SH

4

SH

5

SH

6

ADG COG STG 2015-2017 number funded

SR

… not to delay in submitting a proposal

… gain experience from evaluation

… read evaluators comments

… redraft proposal

… reapply when possible

Success rates from re-applicants are typically 1.5 times higher than call success

rates

ERC encourages PIs

A few tips and advice

Do not include unnecessary partners and

collaborators; it is not supposed to be a

"consortium“

Justify requested resources – explain your

budget properly

Be ambitious and "daring"; panels instructed to seek out high-risk research

Grab interest and attention of readers/ reviewers

Remember that Part B1 will be seen by "generalists" (panel members)

If you make it to Step 2, reviewers see both B1 and B2, so do not repeat /

duplicate part B1 in part B2

Some useful tools and links

│ 52

Read Information for Applicants and

Work Programme

View the step-by-step video

Introduction to application process,

including tips & tricks for the interviewhttps://vimeo.com/94179654

Consult ERC website for latest funding

opportunities, view ERC funded projects

│ 53