ERC 2021 Consolidator Grant Information Event Part 2 - Submission and Evaluation 19 March 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ERC 2021 Consolidator Grant
Information Event Part 2
Submission and Evaluation
19 March 2021
erc-uk@ukro.ac.uk
Outline • Introduction to UKRO • UK Participation • Brief overview of ERC • Submission Process • Evaluation • Other points consideration
Housekeeping • All participants will be muted for the duration of the webinar. • A chat function is available and will be monitored. • Please use the formal Q&A function to submit questions. • You can ‘up vote’ your favourite questions. • We will be recording this session. • Slides will be shared after the webinar on the event page. • The previous Consolidator call webinar can be streamed from the UKRO Portal
About UKRO
Mission
• Maximise UK engagement in EU-funded research, innovation and higher education activities
Our office
• Based in Brussels
• EU office of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
• Delivers subscription-based advisory services for around 140 research organisations in the
UK and beyond
Horizon Europe National Contact Point for
• European Research Council (ERC)- erc-uk@ukro.ac.uk
• Marie Sklowdowska Curie Actions (MSCA) - mariecurie-uk@ukro.ac.uk
Presenters • Sean Rowlands – European Advisor and ERC NCP • Dr Phil Holliday – European Advisor and ERC NCP Moderator • Dr Branwen Hide – Senior European Advisor and ERC NCP
UK’s Relationship with the EU Horizon Europe Participation
UK’s Relationship with the EU
On 24 December 2020, the UK Government announced the
conclusions of the negotiations with the European
Commission.
This agreement included confirmation that the UK will
associate to Horizon Europe, which covers the European
Research Council (ERC)
For further info on UK participation:
• UKRO website provides latest information, factsheets and updates
• The European Commission published a Q&A document
dedicated to UK participation which includes the following
• Withdrawal Agreement is still in place and covers all Horizon
2020 funded projects through their entire life cycle.
Participation and Access
Applying to Programme
User Experience
Horizon Europe Committees & Experts
• UK entities will be able to • There will be no role for the • The UK can participate in
compete for funding on UK Government/UKRI in the Programme Committees
equivalent terms to those of application or grant with speaking rights, access
Member States. management process. to information and
documentation.
• This means that the vast • UK entities will be able to
majority of UK applicants participate in all areas of the • UK experts can continue to
will have a very similar user Horizon Europe take part in evaluations and
experience as they have had Programme, including ERC, join expert groups
in relation to previous MSCA and the grant
Framework Programmes funding elements of the EIC.
such as Horizon 2020.
ERC Consolidator Grant 2021 Call Brief introduction to the scheme
What Do We Mean by Frontier Research? • Ground breaking research • Going beyond current limits of your research area • Development of new horizons • New solutions to old problems • Exciting
ERC Frontier Research Grant Schemes
The ERC funds Projects are led by a
• the best ‘frontier research’ proposals Principal Investigator
• submitted by excellent researchers • plus team members (if required)
• in the research field of their choice. • NOT the same as a consortium
Evaluation by 27 expert
panels in 3 domains:
• Physical Sciences and Engineering (PE)
• Life Sciences (LS)
• Social Sciences and Humanities (SH)ERC Grant Schemes
Years post-PhD
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Starting Grant Consolidator Grant
€1.5M (+ €1M additional) €2M (+ €1M additional)
Lasts up to 5 years Lasts up to 5 years
No PhD Requirements
Advanced Grant Synergy Grant
€2.5M (+ €1M additional) €10M (+ €4M additional)
Lasts up to 5 years Lasts up to 6 years with 2-4 PIs
Proof Of Concept Grant
€150k Lump Sum
Lasts for 1.5 years
Top-up grants for current ERC granteesResearcher Eligibility for 2021 Consolidator Grant Call
> 7 and ≤ 12 years post PhD
• Cut-off dates: PhD awarded from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2013 (inclusive)
• The date of the first PhD considered for the calculation of the eligibility period is the date of the actual award
according to the national rules of the country where the degree was awarded.
• Applicants should check with the awarding institution if there is any doubt on the date of actual award.
Eligibility Extensions
• Maternity leave: 18 months per child born before or after PhD (longer extension allowed if documented).
• Paternity leave: actual amount of documented leave taken before or after PhD award
• Long-term illness (longer than 90 days): of PI or a close family member (child, spouse, parent or sibling)
• National service of PI
• Clinical training: Only if occurs after PhD award date and equates to the actual documented time taken.
No eligibility extensions for
• Part time working, non-research careers, travel etc., (but this is taken into account in the PI’s track record).Host Institution Eligibility
Can be any type of legal entity (university, business, public body etc.)
Must be based in an EU Member State or Associated Country
Has infrastructure and capacity to allow the PI independence
If funded:
Must not constrain the PI to the institution’s research strategy. • signs up to the
Grant Agreement
• signs a
Must ‘engage’ the PI for project duration, if grant is successful
‘Supplementary
Agreement’ with
Not evaluated but must submit letter of commitment with proposal. the PI
Using the NEW letter of commitment template, on official headed letter.Principal Investigators leading Team Members
• None can be co-investigators
• PI leads the research project, • Assigned to specific project
they are not collaborating as outputs/tasks
equals with their team.
• Should not have purely
• PI has the freedom to choose PI supervisory/mentor roles.
how many team members
• Can be research staff at any
are included in the project.
level (including technicians and
• PI names individuals or roles project managers).
that will be recruited in the • Of any age, nationality or
proposal. country of residence
• PI must justify the team and its • Can be based at the Host
composition and contribution. Institution or any other
TEAM MEMBERS
organisation in the world
• Evaluators reject proposals
where the PI is overshadowed • EU funded, even outside
by any team members. member states or associated
countries2021 Call Resubmission Restrictions *Evaluation outcomes from Synergy Grant call only produce resubmission restrictions for Advanced Grant call
Principal Investigator’s Consolidator Grant time commitments
Minimum 40% working time Minimum 50% time spent in Europe
working on the ERC grant (Member State or Associated Country)
• All percentages are established by reference to the full • Fieldwork/work abroad related to the ERC project does
time equivalent at the host institution (see below) or not count against time commitment
1720 hours per year.Submission Process Practical tips for the online submission system and which documents to upload
Approaching Proposal Submission
Register in the Funding & Tender Opportunities Portal and create an ECAS account
Get in touch with your research support office
Add relevant contact people to the online application
Submit early and often – latest version will be accepted
Keep the Information for Applicants in front of you!!!ERC Proposal Submission
Part A Part B1 Part B2 Annexes
• Administrative Forms and • Proposal Overview and PI • Detailed Research • Host Institution Letter,
Abstract Track Record Proposal Ethics, Eligibility
Documents
• 1-step submission, all parts of the proposal are submitted together at deadline.
• Part A is filled in online on the Funding and Tenders Portal
• Part B1, Part B2 and the Annexes are uploaded as PDFs to the Funding and Tenders Portal.
• A combined template of these forms is available on the EC website.Funding & Tender Opportunities
Call Page on Funding & Tender Opportunities Call currently listed as
forthcoming
Until the submission link is
available, key documents are
available on the ERC website.First page of proposal submission
IDENTIFY THE HOST INSTITUTION (PIC number) BASIC DETAILS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL
WHAT IS YOUR ROLE ON THE PROPOSAL?
Select your primary evaluation panel
(e.g. LS3/SH1/PE4 etc)
See a full list of ERC panels and keywords in Annex 4 of the
Information for Applicants document (from page 31)
Anything you enter in this part of the form can be edited later!ERC Panel Structure
Applicants can flag
Must choose a primary Optional secondary Optional free key
their proposal as
evaluation panel evaluation panel words
interdisciplinary
Physical Sciences & Engineering Life Sciences Social Sciences & Humanities
PE1 Mathematics LS1 Molecules of Life: Biological Mechanisms, SH1 Individuals, Markets and Organisations
PE2 Fundamental Constituents of Matter Particle Structures & Functions SH2 Institutions, Governance and Legal Systems
PE3 Condensed Matter Physics LS2 Integrative Biology: Integrative Biology: From SH3 The Social World and its Diversity
Genes and Genomes to Systems
PE4 Physical and Analytical Chemical Sciences SH4 The Human Mind and Its Complexity
LS3 Cellular, Developmental and Regenerative
PE5 Synthetic Chemistry and Materials Biology SH5 Cultures and Cultural Production
PE6 Computer Science and Informatics LS4 Physiology in Health, Disease and Ageing SH6 The Study of the Human Past
PE7 Systems and Communication Engineering LS5 Neuroscience and Disorders of the Nervous SH7 Human Mobility, Environment, and Space*
PE8 Products and Processes Engineering System
PE9 Universe Sciences LS6 Immunity, Infection and Immunotherapy
PE10 Earth System Science LS7 Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Human
Diseases
PE11 Materials Engineering*
LS8 Environmental Biology, Ecology and Evolution
LS9 Biotechnology and Biosystems Engineering
https://erc.europa.eu/document-category/evaluation-panelsMain proposal page
Part A: Administrative Forms
online only
Part B1 & Part B2
Upload PDFs based on editable
templates
Other documents listed below
uploaded separately as PDFs
Part B1 & Part B2
Editable templates available to
download
Support for using the EC portal
• Not support on content of proposals
• Any issues during submission should
be logged with the helpdeskPart A – Administrative forms
Navigate by chapter or pages
How to fill in the formsPart A – PI Declaration of Consent
• These consents should not be submitted with the application, but the applicant must ensure they have
written consent from all participants prior to the call submission deadline.
• ERC Executive Agency may request the applicants to provide the written consent mentioned in the
declarations at any time during the evaluation processPart A - Budget & Resources
Make sure the figures match.
Additional funding:
• In budget table dispersed
across fitting cost categories
• In resources section described
separatelyPart A - Budget
Budget and Resources description are seen
by evaluators but no longer count towards
B2 Page limit
• Four main sections:
– Personnel,
– Subcontracting
– Purchase
– Internally invoiced good and services
• All ‘Additional Funding’ requested must be
– included in the overall budget table,
– tallied with normal costs in appropriate cost category
– For example fieldwork travel would go under Travel &
Subsistence in a sum including ‘normal’ costs not related to
fieldwork).
• If funding is requested for Other personnel costs
& Other additional direct costs (see highlights)
– Should be entered as a total figure on the budget table
– Unpacked in the Resource section with each item briefly
described.Budget and Resources description are seen by
Part A – Description of Resources evaluators but no longer count towards B2 Page limit
Specify the resources required and justify them against the needs of the project. Template for Resources Description
Unjustified budget lines will be reduced, budget lines that are deemed (from Information for Applicants page 53)
necessary by evaluators but not included could count against the proposal. • “I plan to allocate ….” +Justification
What to briefly describe and justify: • Max. 8000 characters (equivalent to
• Describe your commitment to the project about 2 pages)
• Describe all the cost categories considered necessary for the project
• Describe the size and nature of the team, indicating the key team
member(s) and their roles, or key vacant roles, specify and justify if they
• Request for additional funding if applicable.
based at organisations other than the Host.
• Provide a total figure (cost in EUR)
• Describe any requested equipment, justify why you need it and how much it • Address specific grounds for additional
will be used. funding in justification..
• Include the costs for Open Access to project outputs including data • Additional funding described separately
management in Resources section
• Describe any additional funding requested for the project.
• Describe any existing resources not requiring funding that will be usedPart A – Ethics & Security questions
• Follow Horizon Europe guidance document:
‘How to complete your ethics self-assessment’
• UK applicants should answer ‘yes’ on questions about non-
European activity. This will not affect eligibility.
• Answering ‘yes’ on certain questions may require a
brief text response from the applicant.
• Applicants may be requested to upload documents related to
particular questions.
• Free text character limits: If an applicant is requested to enter
free text responses, you might see there is a 2000 character
limit. This is meant to be up to 5000 per text box and will be
changed soon.
• If the existing character limit is too short the recommendation
is to provide the detailed explanation in a separated document
and uploaded the pdf file as one of the optional annexes.
Please also make a reference to the annex in the Ethics text Page references to relevant sections in Part B1 & B2
box in the application form. for each issue if you answer ‘Yes’UPLOAD AS
Supporting Documents PDF DOCUMENTS
About the About the
About the Applicant
Institution Project
• Evidence of degree & • Host Institution • Ethics documents if
date of award. support letter requested by the Part
• Documentation to (using the NEW A Ethics questionnaire
support extension of template, on official (e.g. ethics committee
the eligibility window headed letter) decisions, licenses etc.)
(if relevant) • Documentation to • If the character limit in
➢Birth certificates support extension of the Ethics
➢Doctor’s letters the eligibility window questionnaire is too
➢Proof of leave from an for applicant (if short, upload
Official documents can
employer/previous employer relevant) appropriate responses be submitted in any EU
➢Etc. as PDF annexes. official language
OR
certified translation into
any EU languageHeader: [PI surname], [Project acronym]
The Proposal – Formatting & [Proposal section (Part B1 or Part B2)]
& Templates
Page limits will be strictly applied.
Side margin:
Page formatting will be 2 cm
Font:
systematically checked by the ERCEA. • Times New Roman, Arial or Similar Bottom margin:
References do not count towards • At least font size 11, 1.5 cm
page limit. • Single line spacing
Templates:
• 2021 Consolidator Grant application
form template (PDF version)
• Editable templates available on
ERC website
Page Format:
A4Part B1: Evaluated at Step 1 and Step 2
Extended
Cover page & CV Track Record
Synopsis Funding ID
summary (2 pages) (2 pages)
(5 pages)
Abstract List and describe
Contains all List your research
Half a page essential info about your important
Use the template funding
scientific proposal achievements
Copy/paste of abstract Ongoing grants
from Part A
to date
Including feasibility Forthcoming/
submitted applications
If interdisciplinary Career path ERC profile Not your past grants
or cross-panel ERC-style project Indicate any career
Address the evaluation
Address the evaluation breaks or
Justification criteria when describing
criteria, show why the unconventional
your track record
Indicate the additional project is exciting! career paths
ERC review panel(s) This table will not count
towards the page limit
Most important
References should publications
be included
Up to ten, can be fewer
Do not count towards
Highlight publications as
the page limits
main author and/or
without PhD supervisorPart B2: only evaluated is proposal is selected for Step 2
State of the art
Objectives & Methodology
Scientific Proposal
Address the 'high-risk/high-gain' balance
Maximum 14 pages*
Justification of Milestones & Deliverables
resources not counted
to word limit*
Risk & mitigation
References should be included
*New for 2021 call
(they do not count towards the page limits)Evaluation The Process
Evaluation Process
Tentative timeframe
for CoG call feedback
– Late November 2021
Feedback to applicant about
Step 1 evaluation
– Late March 2022
Inform applicants about
Step 2 evaluation
PI has a 30 minute interview that includes a presentation to the panel followed by a Q&AEvaluation Outcomes
Proposal Reapplication
Stage Funded?
Grading Restrictions?
A 2 If sufficient budget None
B 2 No None
B 1 No 1 Year
C 1 No 2 Years
Proposals which do not progress to Step 2 have “demand management” restrictions.
• Restrictions produced from Starting, Consolidator and • Restrictions from Starting Grant calls apply to
Advanced Grant calls. subsequent Consolidator Grant calls. Similarly from
Consolidator to Advanced.
• Synergy Grant calls only produce restrictions for
PIs at Advanced career level. • Restrictions from Horizon 2020 apply in Horizon Europe.Final Ranked List Calculation
Requested EU Contribution (Panel)
x Available Budget = Panel Budget
Requested EU Contribution (Total)
Normalised Accumulated Budget (NAB) Proposals with a NAB between 0 and
Funding Requested + (Funding 100 are funded.
for Higher Ranked Proposals) Final ranked list is based on NAB
= NAB scores from all panels. Reserve list is
x 100
Panel Budget based on NAB scores over 100.
Example: If a Panel had a €3 million budget, 3 projects would be selected and 1 put on reserve list
Rank Funding Score NAB Funded?
1 €1M A 1/3 x 100 = 33% Yes
2 €1M A (1+1)/3 x 100 = 67% Yes
3 €1M A (1+1+1)/3 x 100 = 100% Yes
4 €1M A (1+1+1+1)/3 x 100 = 133% Reserve?
5 €1M B (1+1+1+1+1)/3 x 100 = 168% No
6 €1M B (1+1+1+1+1+1)/3 x 100 = 200% NoEvaluation The Criteria
ERC evaluation criteria
Excellence of one is not more
important than that of the other
Principal Investigator’s
intellectual capacity,
Research project’s
creativity
ground-breaking nature
commitment
ambition • Proposals marked by panel
feasibility from: 1 – 4
(non-competitive to outstanding)
• Numerical marks not
Excellence communicated to applicant
is the sole • Outcome of panel meetings
evaluation criterion expressed as A, B or C.
Proposal is not judged on socioeconomic impact or
relevance to European policy1. Research Project - Ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility
To what extent:
• does the proposed research address important scientific challenges?
• are the objectives ambitious and beyond the state of the art
• is the proposed research high risk/high gain
The project
To what extent:
• is the outlined scientific approach feasible bearing in mind the high risk/high gain.
• are the research methodology and working arrangements appropriate to achieve project goals
• the proposal involves the development of novel methodology
The Scientific
• are the timescales, resources and PI commitment adequate and properly justified.
Approach2. Principal Investigator - Intellectual capacity and creativity
To what extent:
• has the PI demonstrated the ability to conduct
ground-breaking research?
• does the PI provide evidence of creative independent
The Principal thinking?
Investigator • does the PI have the required scientific expertise and
(PI) capacity to successfully execute the project?Refer back to Webinar 1
Your understanding of the evaluation process and criteria
should inform your proposal writing.
We covered proposal writing in the previous Webinar
A recording of Webinar 1 is available to
stream hereTypical Reasons for Rejection
Proposed Project and Scientific
Principal investigator
Approach
• Scope: Too narrow or too broad or not • Insufficient track-record
focussed enough
• Insufficient (potential for)
• Incremental research, not ground independence
breaking
• Insufficient experience in leading
• Work plan not detailed enough or projects
unclear
• Insufficient risk managementReviewer comments about the Principal Investigator
Unsuccessful Successful
PI has very good track record, yet, it is not entirely clear, The PI has a strong track record, including various
what are their own original contributions their potential as aspects of scientific service, and seems ready to
an independent project leader (creativity, management) is establish their independent career
to be demonstrated
The PI has shown an excellent knowledge of their
Based on the available information about their track record,
publication activity and scientific experience, the Principal field and an amazing productive, including some
Investigator does not seem to have the capacity and is not real highlights
prepared to execute the outlined project.
The PI made several significant contributions [to
The PIs creativity and independent thinking are not their field]
appropriately demonstrated
The PI has a strong track record
The PI has been working in a specialized field and contributed
to a respectable number of publications, although the impact
of these publications is not particularly high.Reviewer comments about the Project
Unsuccessful Successful
• The concepts are novel, but very ill described • The proposed research is based on a bold vision
• Only 5 lines of text to describe a complex set of • This project certainly has substantial risks with equally
experiments. Much more information is needed substantial payoffs if successful.
• Is really high risk but whether it is high gain is not • Addresses a very relevant research topic
certain due to lack of elements
• Proposed project is challenging and the objectives are
• Is an important challenge, but the proposed project is certainly ambitious
not going to make a significant contribution to it.
• Approach seems feasible to address the questions
• There is no description of the expected outcome
• Project is well grounded in supporting evidence
• Could not find information whether the PI will have
• Timescale of the project looks adequate
sufficient access [necessary infrastructures]
• Funding request is fully justified
• The proposal is high risk and low return
• There is also no doubt that the PI would have …the
• Less sure that the research design proposed will
optimal working conditions to achieve these results
provide particularly convincing answers
• The breakthrough of the timescales and resources
• No novel methodology is involved
described in the project by the PI is fully justified.Other Points for Consideration Including Open Access and Gender
Open Science
Under Horizon Europe, beneficiaries of ERC grants must ensure open
access to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to their
ERC project results.
• Open access means accessible on: ❖ Guidelines on FAIR Data
• a trusted repository Management in Horizon 2020
❖ www.openaire.eu
• under a CC BY (or equivalent) licence (either to the ‘author accepted ❖ https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/
manuscript’ or the published ‘version of record’).
Publishing Fees
• For long-text publications like monographs Will not be eligible for funding
– a CC BY-NC / ND / NC-ND licence (or equivalent) is acceptable. from the grant if the venue is not
– The ERC Scientific Council recommends the use of the OAPEN Open Books fully open access
library (https://oapen.org) as repository for monographs and other books (i.e. a fully open access journal or
as well as book chapters. book, or an open access
publishing platform like, e.g.,
You can find the provisions related to Open Science on pages 107 – 109 of the Model Grant Agreement Open Research Europe)Open Research Europe Scholarly publishing platform that will provide Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe beneficiaries with a no-cost full open access peer-reviewed publishing service, across all fields of research https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/
Gender equality plans are not required
Why Gender? at submission stage in 2021
• Integrating the gender dimension in research and innovation is an added value in terms of
excellence, creativity, and business opportunities.
• It helps researchers question gender norms and stereotypes, to rethink standards and
reference models.
• It leads to an in-depth understanding of both genders’ needs, behaviours and attitudes.
• It enhances the societal relevance of the knowledge, technologies and innovations produced.
• It also contributes to the production of goods and services better suited to potential markets.
See the recently recorded ERC workshop about how ERC Excellence is interrelated to the Sex and Gender Dimension.Things to remember
The Abstract
First thing that everyone looks at
Used by the panel chair with the key words to choose the 4
panel members who will undertake the Stage 1 review
Mention interdisciplinary elements
Public facingProposal Advice
Does the proposal go beyond the state of Read all call documentation and the
Questions to ask yourself
Key points
the art ? evaluation criteria
Is it timely? (Why wasn't it done in the past? Is Be specific and don’t provide unsupported
it feasible now?) opinions or comments
What is the risk? Is it justified by the potential Clearly address ALL of the evaluation criteria
gain? Do I have a plan for managing the risk? Make it easy for the evaluators to find the
Why is my proposal important? information
Why am I the best/only person to carry it Pitch to generalists: evaluators will be
out? experts, but not necessarily in your exact area
Am I internationally competitive as a Use clear and concise language and explain
researcher at my career stage and in my country/research area specific jargon
discipline? Include diagrams, images, tables if
Am I able to manage a 5-year project with a appropriate
substantial budget? Research previous and current projects
Find colleagues to proof read drafts with the
evaluation criteriaProposal Development Tips to Check Coherence • Does my methodology support my scientific objectives/questions? • Do I have the right resources?
Resources
• 2021 ERC Starter Grant Information for Applicants
https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-guide20-erc-
stg-cog_en.pdf
• 2021 ERC Work Programme
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/information-for-
applicants_erc-stg_erc-cog_en.pdf
• ERC Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_ZP8emRUxHXv-JU4PZp8g
• ERC Experts https://erc.europa.eu/erc-experts-H2020
• ERC FAQ https://erc.europa.eu/funding/frequently-asked-questions
Remember Read the Information for Applicants and
submit your proposal early and often!Thank you!
You can also read
