│ 1

European Research Council

Il processo di

valutazione dei

progetti ERC

Cristina Gabellieri

Scientific OfficerPhysical Sciences and Engineering

Roma

14 settembre 2016

│ 2

Outline

The Evaluation Procedure

Panel structure

How to prepare and submit a grant proposal

│ 3│ 3│ 3

ERC strategic principles: What is

special about the ERC?

• All fields of science and scholarship are eligible• Investigator-driven, bottom-up

• Scientific Excellence is the only criterion• Individual team + research project• Irrespective of nationality, gender or age of researchers

• Investment in research talent• Attractive, flexible grants, up to five years• Under control of the Principal Investigator

• Independent individual teams in Europe• All nationalities can apply• Host organisation to be located in EU or Associated Country

│ 4

Applicant legal entity: institution that engages and hosts

the PI for the duration of the project (25% overheads to HI)

Any type of legal entity: universities, research centres,

business research units … as long as it is in MS or AC

Commitment of HI: to ensure that the PI may

- apply for funding independently

- manage research and funding for the project

- publish independently as senior author

- have access to reasonable space and facilities

Host institution

│ 5│ 5│ 5

ERC Evaluation process (StG, CoG & AdG)

Panel structure : 3 domains and 25 panels

Each panel :Panel Chair and

10-15 Panel Members

Life Sciences (LS) 9

LS1 Molecular & Structural Biology &

Biochemistry

LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics &

Systems Biology

LS3 Cellular & Developmental Biology

LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology &

Endocrinology

LS5 Neurosciences & Neural disorders

LS6 Immunity & Infection

LS7 Diagnostic Tools, Therapies & Public health

LS8 Evolutionary, Population & Environmental

Biology

LS9 Applied Life Sciences & Non-Medical

Biotechnology

Social Sciences and Humanities (SH) 6

SH1 Markets, Individuals & Institutions

SH2 The Social World, Diversity & Common Ground

SH3 Environment, Space & Population

SH4 The Human Mind and its Complexity

SH5 Cultures & Cultural Production

SH6 The Study of the Human Past

Physical Sciences & Engineering (PE) 10

PE1 Mathematics

PE2 Fundamental Constituents of Matter

PE3 Condensed Matter Physics

PE4 Physical & Analytical Chemical sciences

PE5 Synthetic Chemistry & Materials

PE6 Computer Science & Informatics

PE7 Systems & Communication Engineering

PE8 Products & Process Engineering

PE9 Universe Sciences

PE10 Earth System Science

│ 6│ 6

ERC Evaluation process : Submission of

proposals

Single submission

• one deadline per Call

• to a targeted panel of your choice

• electronically only

• proposals have two parts:

• Part A: administrative forms

• Part B: scientific proposal itself (pdf)

• Step 1: Look at only Part B1

• Step 2: Look at Part B1 + B2

│ 7

Remote assessment by Panel members of section 1 – Synopsis and PI

Panel meeting

Proposals retained for step 2

STEP 1

Remote assessment by Panel members and reviewers of full proposals

Panel meeting + interview (StG+ CoG)

Ranked list of proposals

STEP 2

Redress

Evaluation of proposalsEvaluation procedure

Feedback toapplicants

│ 8│ 8

PART A – online forms

A1 Proposal and PI info

A2 Host Institution info

A3 Budget

PART B1 – submitted as .pdf

Extended Synopsis 5 pages

CV 2 p.

Track Record 2 p.

Annexes – submitted as .pdf

• Statement of support of HI

• copy of PhD or equiv. (StG & CoG)

If applicable:

• document for extension of eligibility

window (StG & CoG)

• explanatory information on ethical

issues

PART B2 – submitted as .pdf

Scientific Proposal 15 p.

(incl. budget table)

Submission of proposalsProposal structure

│ 9│ 9

Excellence as sole criterion, to apply to:

Research Project

Ground breaking nature

Potential impact

Scientific Approach

Principle Investigator (PI)

Intellectual capacity

Creativity

Evaluation Criteria

│ 10│ 10

• Panel members: typically 600 PMs

involved per call

High-level scientists

Recruited by ScC from all over the world

About 10-15 members plus chair person

• Remote Referees: typically 2000 / call

Each evaluate only a small number of

proposals

Other

(7%)

Who evaluates the proposals ?

(7%)

USA

│ 11│ 11

Panel Members by Country and Gender

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

Averaged over the first 19

ERC calls 27% of the ERC

panel members were women

│ 12

Panel meeting – Step 1 Scoring

Result of Step 1:

A. Proposal is of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation

B. Proposal is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation

C. Proposal is not of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation

│ 12

│ 13

Feedback to applicants

Step 2 results

Result of Step 2:

A. Proposal fully meets the ERC's excellence criterion and is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are available

B. Proposal meets some but not all elements of the ERC's excellence criterion and will not be funded

At the end of both steps, applicants will be informed about the ranking range of their proposal out of all proposals evaluated by the panel

│ 13

│ 14

Resubmission restrictions

│ 14

• Ever increasing number of applications causes low success rates and high panel workload

• those who receive a B at Step 1 have to wait out one year

• those who receive a B at Step 2 can apply next year

• those who receive a C will have to wait out two years

│ 15│ 15

2015 Calls: Age of applicants

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

# e

valu

ate

d p

rop

osals

Age on 1 Jan 2015

StG-CoG-AdG 2015 Age of applicants

ADG

COG

STG

│ 16

Extensions of eligibility window possible for StG and CoG for documented cases of:

• Maternity – 18 months per child (before or after PhD)

• Paternity – actual time taken off

• Military service

• Medical speciality training

• Caring for seriously ill family members

• No limit to the total extension

Extensions of eligibility window

│ 17

StG 2015 Funded proposals by gender

Success rates by years past PhD

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Years past PhD

# f

un

ded

pro

po

sals

STG 2015 funded PIs by years past PhD

M (252)

F (99)

SR Female PIs (10 %)

SR Male PIs (13.4 %)

│ 18

A few tips and advice (1/2)

• 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

• Do not include unnecessary partners and

collaborators; it is not supposed to be a "consortium"

│ 19

Some tips and advice (1/2)

• For interviews (StG and CoG):

– Get Panel Members interested in you and what

you are doing

– Practice thoroughly, several (many?) times;

typically a 10 minute presentation followed by

10-15 minutes of questions

– Panels want to see that these are your ideas,

not those of your supervisor

– It is normal to be nervous…

│ 20

For further information…

• ERC Web site: http://erc.europa.eu/

• Documents:

• ERC Work Programme (published annually)

• Information for Applicants (published with each call)

• National Contact Points

• European Commission Research Participant Portal

│ 20

│ 21

Thank you