Are you writing a Marie Curie Individual Fellowship proposal? These tips can be useful!

Before to final editing process, submission and deadline, I spent some time looking at evaluation forms. In my opinion, this evaluation form helps applicants identify ways to improve their proposals.

You can find the self-evaluation form here.

Moreover, I will share my personal evaluation report. I hope you find some of this information useful in order to improve your proposal.

Evaluation Result
Total score: 93.40% (Threshold: 70/100.00)

SCORING
Scores must be in the range 0-5.
Interpretation of the score:
0– The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.
1– Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.
2– Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.
3– Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.
4– Very good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.
5– Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion.Any shortcomings are minor.

Criterion 1 – Excellence
Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 50.00%)
• Quality and credibility of the research/innovation project; level of novelty, appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary
and gender aspects
• Quality and appropriateness of the training and of the two way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host
• Quality of the supervision and of the integration in the team/institution
• Potential of the researcher to reach or re-enforce professional maturity/independence during the fellowship

Strengths:
– This proposal is original and ambitious in its research objectives.
– The proposal is well structured and professional.
– The proposal succeeds in presenting its relevance as to timing of the topic and development of research on the impact of intra-party democracy and deliberation on populism.
– The general research methodology is appropriate and there is adequate confidence in how the data base would be utilised.
– The proposal addresses the subject matter in a multi-disciplinary manner
– The training opportunities offered by the host institution are strong and beneficial to the researcher; the planned training is well suited for the
achievement of the main objectives of the project
– The proposal describes explicitly and with clarity how the researcher would benefit from training and new knowledge in the host institution
– The proposal describes explicitly and with clarity how the host institution would benefit from the previously acquired skills and knowledge of
the researcher
– The supervisor is a widely acknowledged expert in the field, and would be able to deliver high quality supervision to the project and the
researcher
– The proposal describes clearly the integration of the researcher into the research team and the host institution, and how a number of
colleagues would be able to provide valuable inputs.
– The proposal presents clearly the international networking opportunities that the host institution would offer.
– The proposal describes with clarity how the fellowship would reinforce the researcher’s professional maturity, independence and talents
– The proposal contains a clear list of new competences and skills which are expected the benefit the profile of the researcher
– The proposal indicates the researcher’s solid academic track record which is a good basis for the academic follow up career during the
fellowship.

Weaknesses:
– The use of central terms such as “populist issues” or “intra-party democracy” are not adequately defined.
– The hypotheses to be tested are not clarified in sufficient detail.
– The researcher does not integrate adequately the gender dimension in the project.

Criterion 2 – Impact
Score: 4.80 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 30.00%)
• Enhancing the future career prospects of the researcher after the fellowship
• Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results
• Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the project activities to different target audiences

Strengths:
– The proposal is promising in terms of developing the profile of the experienced and highly qualified researcher.
– There is a convincing description on how new competences and skills would contribute to the career success of the researcher in the short,
medium and long term
– The proposal identifies a comprehensive list of measures taken to disseminate the results of the project to different academic groups.
– The proposal includes a creative and rich communication plan for different target groups. There is a very convincing strategy on how to reach
wider audiences and how research outputs can be understood by non-specialists. The proposal defines precisely the goals of the
communication strategy.

Weakness:
– The proposal does not define clearly the main goals of the dissemination strategy.

Criterion 3 – implementation
Score: 4.90 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 20.00%)
• Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources
• Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures, including risk management
• Appropriateness of the institutional environment (infrastructure)

Strengths:
– The proposal contains a very good and detailed work plan.
– The proposal is divided into credible and clear work packages, it includes clear deliverables and contains important milestones.
– The budget is appropriate and realistic and the allocation of resources is clear and well designed.
– The management – administrative and substantial – are well described and the host institution has the capacity and experience to monitor the
progress and to ensure that the objectives can be reached.
– There is a detailed risk assessment accompanied by mitigation strategies which shows that there is knowledge of potential risks and how to
address them.
– The host institution is fully capable and has the experience to address logistics and to contribute to the smooth implementation of the project.
– The host institution’s research as well as training, library and IT facilities are of high quality.
– The career development bodies at the host institution are precisely specified in the proposal.

Weakness:
– No weakness.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.