European Research Council
AdG proposal
preparation –
do’s and don’ts
Mirjam Witschke
AdG Call Coordination
ERCEA Scientific Management Department
Advanced Grant Unit
│1
European Research Council
3. AdG proposal preparation
Æ do
do’s
s and don’ts
don ts
│2
European Research Council
Milestones in p
proposal
p
submission & evaluation
Legal basis for
ERC calls for
proposals
Approval of results and
final notifications
to applicants
Preparation &
submission phase
(approx. 3
months)
Call deadline
Two- step evaluation
Step 1 (Part B1)
Step 2 (
(full
u p
proposal)
oposa )
Registration and
submission in EPSS
Call published on
CORDIS
Work Programme 2011
Evaluation and
approval phase (9
(9-11
11
months)
│3
European Research Council
Legal
g and strategic
g framework
• Annual ERC Work Programme
(
(usually
ll published
bli h d iin JJuly)
l )
• Legal basis for ERC calls for proposals:
Î Policy objectives and principles of ERC
funding
g
Î ERC grant schemes (submission & proposal,
evaluation eligibility & evaluation criteria)
Î Call fiche (indicative call budget and
di t ib ti b
distribution
by d
domain)
i )
│4
European Research Council
Legal
g and strategic
g framework
Annual ERC Work Programme
9Principle Investigator and Host Institution
g
for the call ((followingg the eligibility
g
y criteria and
eligible
restrictions for applications)?
9Profile of an AdG applicant: do I have
sufficient significant research achievements
in the last 10 years to be competitive?
│5
ERC Work Programme
eligibility modifications for AdG 2011
European Research Council
WP 2010
WP 2011
Re-application rule changed: only
allowed
ll
d tto re-apply
l ffor ERC-2011-AdG
ERC 2011 AdG
if proposal is evaluated above quality
threshold at step-2 but not funded.
Re- application rule relaxed: Applicants of
th ERC-2010-AdG
the
ERC 2010 AdG callll need
d tto h
have mett
the quality threshold after step 1 to be
eligible for the ERC-2011-AdG call.
Restriction for AdG 2009 Panel
Members: PIs who served as a panel
member for the AdG 2009 may not apply to
th AdG 2011
the
Involvement of PI – eligibility
criteria: at least 30% of working time
to the ERC-funded project while
spending at least 50% of the total
working time in an EU Member State
or Associated
A
i t dC
Country
t
Involvement of PI – evaluation criteria:
at least 30% of working
g time to the ERCfunded project while spending at least 50%
of the total working time in an EU Member
State or Associated Country
│6
European Research Council
Profile of an ERC Advanced Grant
applicant
Î Active researchers which are exceptional leaders in terms of the
originality and significance of their research contribution
Î 10 years track
track-record
record of significant research achievements
(extension of max 14,5 years if career breaks in that period)
Î At least one or more of the following benchmarks (depending
on the
th research
h fi
field):
ld)
•
•
•
•
•
•
10 publications as senior author
3 major research monographs
5 granted patents
10 invited presentations
3 research exhibitions led by the applicant
3 well-established international conferences were applicant was
involved as member of the steering/organisation committee
• international recognition through scientific prizes/awards or
membership in scientific academies
│7
European Research Council
Evaluation Criteria
Excellence as sole criterion, to apply to:
1. Principal Investigator
Î
Î
Intellectual capacity and creativity
Commitment
2. Quality of the research project
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Ground-breaking nature of the research and potential impact
High risk/high gain balance
Feasibility (step 1)
Methodology and resources (step 2)
Participation and added value of team members from another host
institution (step 2)
│8
European Research Council
Evaluation criterion 1 - AdG
1. Principal Investigator
IIntellectual
t ll t l capacity
it and
d creativity
ti it
To what extent is the Principal Investigator's (and any Co-Investigator if
applicable) record of research, collaborations, project conception,
supervision of students and publications ground-breaking and
demonstrative of independent creative thinking and the capacity to go
significantly beyond the state of the art?
Commitment
Is the Principal Investigator strongly committed to the project and willing to
devote a significant amount of time to it (PI will be expected to devote at
least 30% of working time to the ERC-funded project and spend at least
50% of total working time in an EU Member State or associated country)?
│9
European Research Council
Evaluation criterion 2 - AdG
2. Research project
Ground-breaking nature and potential impact of the research:
T what
To
h t extent
t t does
d
the
th proposed
d research
h address
dd
iimportant
t t challenges
h ll
att th
the ffrontiers
ti
off
the field(s) addressed? To what extent does it have suitably ambitious objectives, which go
substantially beyond the current state of the art (e.g. including inter- and trans-disciplinary
developments and novel or unconventional concepts and/or approaches)?
Methodology:
To what extent does the possibility of a major breakthrough with an impact beyond a specific
research domain/discipline justify any highly novel and/or unconventional methodologies
("high-gain/high-risk balance")?
To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible?
To what extent is the proposed research methodology (including the proposed timescales
and resources) appropriate to achieve the goals of the project?
To what extent are the resources requested necessary and properly justified? (assessed at
step 2)
If it is proposed that team members engaged by another host institution participate in the
project
j t iis th
their
i participation
ti i ti ffully
ll jjustified
tifi d b
by th
the scientific
i tifi added
dd d value
l th
they b
bring
i tto th
the
project? (assessed at step 2)
│ 10
European Research Council
AdG 2011: call publication
p
• Call published on CORDIS Æ IDEAS
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm
• Information package: applicable Guide for
Applicants call fiche and ERC Work programme
Applicants,
• EPSS- submission (Electronic Proposals Submission Service)
Æ https://www.epss-fp7.org/epss/
• Single
g submission
Î full proposal, 2 step- evaluation
│ 11
AdG 2011: Proposal preparation
and submission
European Research Council
9 register early, get familiar with the system and templates
g in the forms
and start filling
9 make use of the help tools and guidance documents
(FAQ, GfA, EPSS guide) to prepare your proposal
9 submit your proposal and relevant annexes in EPSS well
in advance before the deadline to avoid last minute errors
! A submitted proposal can be revised until the call deadline
by submitting a new version and overwriting the previous
one (only what is in the system at the time of the deadline
will be evaluated)
│ 12
European Research Council
AdG 2011: Submission forms EPSS
ERC Grant proposal AdG 2011
PART A – online forms
A1
A2
A3
Proposal, PI (+Co-I),HI data
H t iinstitution/
Host
tit ti /
other organisations
Budget (reference for grant)
Annexes – submitted as .pdf
- Signed Host Institution letter
- If applicable: explanatory info and
docs on ethical issues
- Co-Investigator Annex (if
applicable)
PART B1 – submitted as .pdf
pdf
Section 1 Track Record of PI
a) Scientific Leadership (factual)
b) CV (including “funding ID”)
c) Early achievements track record
d)) Extended synopsis
y p
1 p.
2 p.
2 p.
5p
p.
PART B2 – submitted as .pdf
Section 2 Scientific proposal
15 p.
Section 3 Research Environment
│ 13
European Research Council
Proposal preparation EPSS:
do’s and don’ts – Administrative A
A--forms
Section A1: Proposal and PI (+Co-I) information
9 accurate administrative data: PI and HI name,
country and contact details (used for notification letters
letters,
applicant’s web account and administrative checks, statistical
purposes)
PART A – online forms
A1 Proposal, PI (+Co-I),HI data
A2 Host institution/
other organisations
A3 Budget (reference for grant)
9 indicated Co-Investigator information consistent with
details given in Part B1 and Co-Investigator Annex)
9 concise and no confidential information in title and
abstract (may be communicated to external referees
when contacting them)
9 carefully select Primary ERC Review Panel
('Targeted Review Panel') by which you would like your
proposall tto b
be evaluated
l t d and
d kkeywords
d
│ 14
European Research Council
Proposal preparation EPSS:
do’s and don’ts – Administrative A
A--forms
• Targeted Review Panel (of PI choice and responsibility)
Î Can flag one “Alternative
Alternative Review Panel”
Panel
• Primary panel is “responsible” and takes ownership for
the evaluation of that proposal
• Only in exceptional cases proposals can be transferred
between panels e.g. in case of clear mistake by applicant
• However: switching of proposals between domains (and
deadlines) not possible
• But: In case cross-panel or cross-domain proposals,
evaluation byy members of other p
panels p
possible
│ 15
European Research Council
Proposal preparation EPSS:
do’s and don’ts – Administrative A
A--forms
Section A2: Host information and other organisations
9 accurate administrative data: name of legal
representative
p
from the Host Institution ((commitment))
and contact details for administrative contact person
(e-mail address)
9 other institutes/organisations (e.g. legal entity from
Co-Investigator, team member) ⇒ no consortia!
PART A – online forms
A1 Proposal, PI (+Co-I),HI data
A2 Host institution/
other organisations
A3 Budget (reference for grant)
Section A3: Budget and cost allocation
9 budget table: breakdown of total costs per category
and organisation
9 requested ERC grant and needs to be consistent
with
t the
t e research
esea c p
proposal
oposa ((Part
a t B2,, Section
Sect o 2c,
c,
Resources)
9 total eligible costs = grant request (full cost model),
costs are g
given without VAT and in whole Euros
│ 16
Proposal preparation EPSS:
do’s and don’ts – Part B proposal
Part B section 1 : PI profile (+Co-I)
a) Scientific Leadership profile (fact-based and not
only self-appraisal)
9 content and impact of the major scientific
or scholarly contributions,
9 international recognition and diffusion
9 efforts and ability to inspire younger
researchers (e.g. careers of post-docs)
9 p
proven ability
y to change
g research fields
and/or to establish new interdisciplinary
approaches
b) CV (including “funding ID” with recent and
ongoing grants and applications)
European Research Council
PART B1 – submitted as .pdf
Section 1 Track Record of PI (+Co-I)
a) Scientific Leadership 1 p.
b) CV (including “funding ID”) 2 p.
c) 10- years track record 2 p.
d) Extended synopsis 5 p.
│ 17
Proposal preparation EPSS:
do’s and don’ts – Part B proposal
Part B section 1: PI profile (+Co-I)
c) 10-year track record (list of activities in the past 10
years depending on the discipline)
years,
9 top 10 publications, as senior author (+
citations and if applicable h-index)
9 Research monographs
g p
9 Invited presentations to peer-reviewed,
internationally established conferences
9 Research expeditions
p
9 Granted patents
9 Organisation of International conferences
9 International Prizes/Awards/Academy
memberships
9 Memberships to Editorials Boards of
International Journals
European Research Council
PART B1 – submitted as .pdf
Section 1 Track Record of PI (+Co-I)
a) Scientific Leadership 1 p.
b) CV (including “funding ID”) 2 p.
c) 10- years track record 2 p.
d) Extended synopsis 5 p.
! Co-Investigator
Co Investigator
projects: also section 1
a), b), c) with Co-I
profile
│ 18
Proposal preparation EPSS:
do’s and don’ts – Part B proposal
European Research Council
Part B section 1: extended synopsis
PART B1 – submitted as .pdf
9 Should contain all relevant information
including the feasibility of the scientific proposal
9 Ground-breaking nature in the proposed work
in context of the state of the art
9 References to literature
9 PI’s time commitment to the project (min 30%)
Section 1 Track Record of PI (+Co-I)
a) Scientific Leadership 1 p.
b) CV (including “funding ID”) 2 p.
c) 10- years track record 2 p.
d) Extended synopsis 5 p.
⇒ needs to be carefully drafted as it will give first
impression of proposed research
(panel will only evaluate Part B1 at step 1)
│ 19
Proposal preparation EPSS:
do’s and don’ts – Part B proposal
Part B section 2): scientific proposal
a) State of the art and objectives (incl.
unconventional multi-/ interdisciplinary
approaches)
b) Methodology (novel aspects in relation to state
of the art)
c) Resources (incl. project costs)
9 use the costing table template to facilitate
the assessment of resources and costs
9 breakdown of yearly budget subdivided in:
- personnel costs, equipment,
other direct costs: consumables, travel,
publication costs, subcontracting if
applicable + 20 % indirect costs (excl.
sub-contracting) ⇒ summary in A 3 form
d) Ethical Issues table
9 must be filled in even if no issues
European Research Council
PART B2 – submitted as .pdf
Section 2 Scientific proposal 15 p.
a)) State
St t off the
th artt and
d objectives
bj ti
b) Methodology
c) Resources
d) Ethi
Ethicall issues
i
table
t bl
! realistic estimation
based on actual needs
unjustified,
unnecessary and
overestimated costs
will probably be
reduced
│ 20
Proposal preparation EPSS:
do’s and don’ts – Annexes
Annexes and supporting documents
9 Scanned copy of the signed
Commitement letter of the Host
Institution (template!)
If applicable:
European Research Council
Annexes – submitted as .pdf
- Signed Host Institution letter
- If applicable: explanatory info and
docs on ethical issues
- Co-Investigator Annex (if
applicable)
If YES in ethical issues table:
9 Ethical issues Annex (template):
d
description
i ti off ethical
thi l iissue + any
supporting documents for authorisations
e.g. from ethical committees
9 Co-Investigator Annex
! Given page limit
should be respected
and any other
documents hyperlinks
documents,
to embedded material
etc will be disregarded
( q
(required
Annexes will not
count towards the page limit)
│ 21
European Research Council
AdG Call 2011: deadlines
ƒ AdG 2011 call on CORDIS and ERC website
PE deadline
9 February 2011, 17h Brussels time
LS deadline
10 March 2011, 17h Brussels time
SH deadline
d dli
6A
Aprilil 2011
2011, 17h Brussels
B
l time
ti
! Submit
S b it in
i time
ti
⇒ No
N additional
dditi
l information
i f
ti can be
b
accepted after the call deadline
│ 22
European Research Council
ERC Advanced Grants 2011
- points
i t to
t remember
b
ƒ Synopsis of Part B 1 should be carefully written (this is the
only proposal information that is accessible and assessed at step 1)
ƒ Coherency
C
off budget figures
f
(A3 and Part B2, in case of doubt
usually A3 figures serves as a reference)
ƒ Feedback in form of an Evaluation report:
⇒ Evaluation report consists of panel comments summarising the
Panel decision and individual comments (Panel Members, remote
referees)
f
) which
hi h may nott b
be necessarily
il convergent!
t!
ƒ Individual reviews are done remotely and are not
harmonised
ƒ Resubmissions: an evaluation result can differ from one
year to another (proposals are evaluated in the context of each
competition)
titi )
│ 23
FP7 IDEAS Programme
European Research Council
The European Research Council
http://erc.europa.eu
ERC Executive Agency
│ 24
European Research Council
ERC evaluation procedure
Proposals
(EPSS)
Deadline
Proposals
ineligible
(excluded)
Checks
I d
Independent
d t remote
t reviews
i
by
b panell members
b
Proposals passed
t step
to
t 2
Step 1 panel meetings
g
Proposals
rejected
j t d
Independent remote reviews by panel members and remote
referees
Step 2 panel meetings (StG
+interview)
Proposals
selected
Proposals
rejected
Proposals pending
Final panel chair meeting
Proposals
selected
Reserve list
│ 25