Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions - Doctoral Networks Information Webinar: Submission and Evaluation - UKRO
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Doctoral Networks Information Webinar:
Submission and Evaluation
20 May 2021
mariecurie-uk@ukro.ac.uk
Housekeeping • All participants will be muted for the duration of the webinar. • Please use the formal Q&A function to submit questions. • You can ‘up vote’ your favourite questions. • Presentation slides will be made available on the event Portal • We are recording the webinar. • A chat function is available and will be monitored.
Speakers • Presenter – Dr Branwen Hide, MSCA NCP and UKRO Senior European Advisor • Moderator – Nabil Ali, MSCA NCP and UKRO European Advisor
MSCA Doctoral Networks Fellowships Overview • Introduction to UKRO • UK Participation in Horizon Europe • Brief Introduction to Doctoral Networks • Process for Submission & Evaluation • Proposal Guidance and Tips • Q&A
About UKRO
• Mission
– Maximise UK engagement in EU-funded research,
innovation and higher education activities
• Our office
– Based in Brussels
– European 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
– Provides ERC and MSCA National Contact Point services
on behalf of the UK Government
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.
• Included confirmation that the UK will associate to Horizon
Europe, which covers the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions
(MSCA)
• The agreement also included participation in:
– Joint Research Centre activities, Article 185 & 187 Partnerships, the
EIT, ERICs, ERAC, Euratom ITER, Copernicus
• The intent is for the UK to associate in time to participate from
the beginning of the programme
– Commission Official, Signe Ratso, the Deputy DG for Research and
Innovation provided re-assurance that it is their expectation that UK entities
will be eligible to participate in the first calls.
– UK entities including universities, research centres, scientists,
innovative businesses, industry, etc. will have full rights to participate in
the first calls for proposals of Horizon Europe as soon as they are
published on the European Commission’s website (EC Q&A)
– The UK will have the same rights and obligations as other countries
associated to the Programme (EC Q&A)
European Commission guidance
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/news/horizon-europe-uk-participation_en
What does this mean for UK applicants?
• UK institutions can:
– Recruit PhD candidates
– Coordinate projects
– Provide training opportunities
– Receive funding from the EC for the life time of the project
• Projects with a UK host organisation will not be evaluated differently
Sources of Further Information
• UKRO website provides latest information on UK
participation
• EC Q&A on UK’s Participation in Horizon Europe
• The official statements on the EU-UK relationship
are available on a dedicated European
Commission website and the UK Government
page.
• UK Government provides information on EU
Funded Programmes under the Withdrawal
Agreement.Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Overview
Horizon Europe
Budget for 2021 call: €402.95 million
Call Timeline
Action Date (tentative)
Call opening 27 May 2021
16 November 2021
Deadline for Submission 17:00 Brussels Time
Evaluation of Proposals December – February 2022
Information on Outcome of Evaluations March – April 2022
Indicative Date for Signing the Grant
April - June 2022
Agreement
Commission collects proposals at Deadline,
Submit early and often!MSCA Key Features
Operates on a ‘bottom-up’ basis
For any research and innovation ideas (basic research; market take-up)
Mobility (cross-border and cross-sector) is a key requirement
Enhance skills of people behind research and innovation
Strong participation across sectors
Dissemination and public engagement - public outreach
Gender Friendly and Inclusive – equal opportunities in the research contentMSC Actions
MSCA Doctoral Networks (formerly ITNs)
• Funds consortium based doctoral training programmes
MSCA Post-Doctoral Fellowships (formerly IFs)
• Supports excellent individual postdoctoral researcher
MSCA COFUND Doctoral and Fellowship Programme
• COFUNDs collaborative doctoral and postdoctoral fellowship schemes
MSCA Staff Exchange Scheme (formerly RISE)
• Supports research and innovation staff exchange programmes
MSCA and Citizen
• Public engagementOverall strategy for Doctoral Networks
Take from: Net4mobility+, MSCA-ITN Handbook 2019Doctoral Networks
• Set out to train creative, entrepreneurial, innovative and resilient doctoral candidates able to face current and
future challenges
• Raising the excellence and structure research and doctoral training
• should have an impact at researcher, organisation and system level.
• set up by partnerships of universities, research institutions and research infrastructures, businesses
including SMEs, and other socio-economic actors from different countries across Europe and beyond
50% of time spent in non-
Industrial Doctorates
academic sector
Multi-beneficiary Action to
set up doctoral
programmes including
Joint delivery of a
Joint Doctorates joint/double doctoral
degreeSubmission Process HORIZON-MSCA-2021-DN-01-01
Submission Outline
Register in the Funding & Tender Opportunities Portal and create an ECAS /EU Login 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 Guide for Applicants in front of you!!!
Call Name: HORIZON-MSCA-2021-DN-01-01Funding & Tender Opportunities
Call Page on Funding & Tender Opportunities
Submission system
Select your Mode to
begin your applicationPanel Selection
• Evaluation Panels • Multidisciplinary is encouraged
1. Chemistry (CHE)
• Abstract and Descriptors are important
2. Social Sciences and Humanities (SOC)
• Industrial and joint doctorates will be
3. Economic Sciences (ECO)
ranked in the scientific panel of
4. Information Science and Engineering
submission
(ENG)
• Each panel will establish a ranked list.
5. Environment and Geosciences (ENV)
• No predefined budget allocation among
6. Life Sciences (LIF)
the panels
7. Mathematics (MAT)
8. Physics (PHY) • Budget distributed based on number of
eligible proposals in each panelProposal Submission
• PIC code.
Coordinator • Acronym and
registers the draft Summary
proposal
• Choice of panel.
Coordinator
adds beneficiary • PIC codes (at least draft PIC).
organisations onto • Contacts
the proposal
Proposal • Part A- Administrative forms
completed • Part B1/B2 - Upload as pdf.
Proposal • Submission system
submitted checks
Submit early and often!Adding Participants
Proposal Forms
Edit and update
information in Part
A.
Download Part B
template in Word Upload Part B1
format. and other
requested
documents in .pdf
format.Proposal – Part A (Administrative forms) • Many fields will be pre-populated using information from both PIC and EU Log-ins. • All other fields to be completed and saved in the online form.
Budget
Table from
Horizon 2020
for illustrative
purposes
❑ Funding based fully on unit costs, multiplied by requested person months
❑ Automated calculation of budget when secondment months filled into application
❑ Automatically assumes 70% of DC will be eligible for the family allowance when calculating
budgetNovelties for Horizon Europe – For Collaborative Projects
Gender Equality Plans
• Does not apply to private-for-profit organisations
including SMEs, non-governmental or civil society
organisations
• A transition/grace period will be implemented before
full enforcement of this eligibility criterion for calls
with deadlines in 2022
• Self-declaration will be requested at proposal stage
• Minimum requirementsEthics & 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.
• Page references to relevant sections of proposal for each
issue if you answer ‘Yes’Part B1 – Horizon 2020 Template
• Complete ALL mandatory tables
• Use required sub-headings
– Can also include additional subheading
B1
• Action should be divided in Work Packages
– Should reflect the research objectives
• Deliverables should be divided into:
– scientific deliverables and management, training,
recruitment and dissemination deliverables B2
• Milestones
– control points in the action that help to chart
progress and MAY be linked to deliverablesFormatting
Tables should not be
All margins at least
Min. font size 11 * used to circumvent
15 mm
min font size.
Information
The page formatting Footnotes are for
provided through
will be systematically literature references
hyperlinks will be
checked by the REA. ONLY.
disregarded.
* Except for the tables and footnotes (min. font size 8)Evaluation Process HORIZON-MSCA-2021-DN-01-01
Evaluation Workflow
Chairs & Vice-Chairs
Evaluators
Receipt of Individual Consensus Panel
Review Finalisation
proposals evaluation group
Allocation of Individual Consensus Panel Cleaned
proposals to Evaluation Report ranked list Evaluation
evaluators Reports (done remotely) Summary
(done Reports
remotely)
❑ Automatic pre-allocation done by REA based on MSCA specific key words
❑ Vice-Chairs revise the pre-allocation of proposals to experts
❑ Do not assign 3 experts from the same nationality to a proposal, taking into account CoIExpert Selection Considerations
At least
Private –
Nationality 25% of
Expertise Gender Public newcomers
Balance balance
per call
Research Domain >40% Female 26% Non-academic
Multidisciplinary
PhD Programme
Management
❑ Pre-selection of bigger pool, final selection after call closure
❑ Evaluator Guidance Video: https://ec.europa.eu/info/animated-briefing-independent-experts_enScore Descriptors – Consensus Discussions ❑ Involves an exchange on the basis of the 3 individual evaluations – Not just a simple averaging exercise ❑ The aim is to find agreement on comments and then the scores ❑ “Outlying” opinions are explored
Evaluation and scoring
Marie Skłodowska-Curie
Excellence Impact Implementation
Scored on a scale of 0-5
50% 30% 20%
Weighting
1 2 3
Priority in case of ex aequo
Overall threshold of 70% applies to total score
❑ Proposals funded in ranking order - highly competitive and need to score of 90-95+ depending on the panel
❑ Same scores: prioritisation decided by panel, based on scores for award criteria (weighting above).
❑ If needed further prioritisation based on criteria in line with the WP (e.g. gender balance of
supervisors, involvement of non-academic sector, geographical spread, international co-operation,
etc.).
❑ If the proposal to the 20201 call scores less that 80% it will be restricted from applying to the 2022 call
❑ eligibility to resubmit will be indicated in the ESRResubmissions from Horizon 2020
• Each evaluation is an independent exercise.
• Should not make reference to the previous outcome in new proposal
• The evaluators receive a copy of the previous Evaluation Summary Report at consensus phase
• In case the evaluation markedly differs from the previous evaluation(s), the evaluators will be instructed to
verify that their comments and scores for the current proposal are duly justified.
• There will be no comparison between proposals
• NO resubmission restrictions for the 2021 Horizon Europe callITN Evaluation Criteria
Excellence Impact Quality and efficiency
of the implementation
Quality and pertinence of the project’s research and Contribution to structuring doctoral training at the Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment
innovation objectives (and the extent to which they are European level and to strengthening European of risks and appropriateness of the effort assigned to
ambitious, and go beyond the state of the art) innovation capacity, including the potential for: work packages
a) meaningful contribution of the non-academic sector to
the doctoral training, as appropriate to the
implementation mode and research field
b) developing sustainable elements of doctoral
programme
Soundness of the proposed methodology (including Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise Quality, capacity and role of each
interdisciplinary approaches, consideration of the expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the participant, including hosting arrangements and extent
gender dimension and other diversity aspects if relevant dissemination and exploitation plan, including to which the consortium as a whole brings together the
for the research project, and the quality and communication activities necessary expertise
appropriateness of open science practices)
Quality and credibility of the training programme Credibility of the measures to enhance the career
(including transferable skills, inter/multidisciplinary, inter- perspectives and employability of researchers and
sectoral and gender as well as other diversity aspects) contribution to their skills development
Quality of the supervision (including mandatory joint The magnitude and importance of the
supervision for industrial and joint doctorate projects) project’s contribution to the expected scientific, societal
and economic impactsUnderstand Evaluation Process – Horizon 2020
• Annex 2 to the Guide for Applicants (page 34)
• Grants Manual: Section on submission and evaluation
• MSCA ITN evaluation form – do self-evaluation
Part B of your proposal
Evaluation gridProposal Development HORIZON-MSCA-2021-DN-01-01
Section 1 Excellence
Quality, innovative aspects and credibility of the research programme
• State the research/technical problem/knowledge/specific skills gap your DN will address and how
• Use diagrams, tables, figures as appropriate to clarify any point
• Have clear objectives, methodology/approach,
• Highlight originality and innovativeness and inter/multi disciplinary elements
• Explain approaches to complying with open science requirements and gender (including gender dimension of research)
• Explain how individual projects integrate into the research programme
• Work Packages should reflect the research objectives
• Training through research
Quality and innovative aspects of the training programme
• Detailed summary of the training objectives stressing the innovative aspects
• Training: core research skills, advanced/additional research skills/transferable skills
• Training opportunities unique and tailored to particular areas
• Offered on local and network wide level or wider (as appropriate)
• Emphasise the role of any non-academic organisations in the training and their impact
• Including secondments is highly recommended to increase impact
• Think about links to ECTS, EDCI etc - European approach to micro-credentials
• What other training programmes are you apart of that the DN can take advantage of – Erasmus+. EIT, UKRI DCSection 1 Excellence
Quality of the supervision
• Qualifications of supervisor(s) (Numbers of previously supervised fellows, of post-docs mentored etc)
• Reference European Charter for Researchers
• Include details of joint supervision - mandatory for Industrial and Joint doctorates;
• Clear and well structured supervisory plan
• Clear role of the supervisory board
• Gender balance
• How will they complement each other
• Who will be responsible for what aspects
Quality of the proposed interaction between the participating organisations
• Contributions of participating organisations with justification – why this consortium is best placed to deliver
• Synergies between partners – added value of working together
• How they complement and enhance each others activities
• Opportunity for researchers to be involved in of linked activities
• Exposure to different sectors or working outside ‘comfort zones’:
• Learning new techniques
• Developing transferable skills (of benefit to industry)Section 2 Impact
Enhancing the career perspectives and employability of researchers - contribution to
their skills development
• Explain the impact of the research and training on the Fellows’ careers
• Link research training, transferable skill development and exposure to different sectors
• Think about how the research programme fits into higher level EU policies:
• European Charter for Researchers, Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers, European Code of
Conduct for Research Integrity, MSCA Guidelines for Supervision
Contribution to structuring doctoral / early-stage research training at the European
level and to strengthening European innovation capacity, including the potential for:
• Meaningful contribution of the non-academic sector to the doctoral/research training, as appropriate to the
implementation mode and research field
• What is their role in the programme and how does it enhance it to be world leading?
• What can the programme offer that other programmes don’t or can’t?
• Make sure the innovative aspects that the non-academic partners bring are emphasisedSection 2 Impact
Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the
project results
• Horizon Europe obligations to make publications and research data open access
• How will the results be disseminated, which repositories, etc.?
• Data Management Plan
• Plans for Exploitation of results and intellectual property
• Think how, what form of protection, when?
• IPR Helpdesk for MSCA Fact Sheet
Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the activities to
different target audiences
• Detail the project’s plans for communication of research findings
• Does the project have communication and public engagement strategy? – hint, they
probably should!
• Who are the appropriate audiences for these activities?
• What are the appropriate means for these activities?
• Communicating EU R&I Guidance for Project ParticipantsSection 3 Implementation Overall coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources • Clear, Concise, Achievable Work Packages • Research, Management, Training, Dissemination and Communication • List of major deliverables and major milestones Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including quality management and risk management • Explain who will be responsible for what and when will they do it: • Network organisation and management structure/supervisory board • Admission, selection, supervision, monitoring and assessment procedures • Risk management at consortium level • IPR, Gender, Open Access, Data Management etc. • Clear decision making and conflict resolution strategies • Clear progress monitoring provisions • Clear details on recruitment process
Section 3 Implementation
Appropriateness of the infrastructure of the participating
organisations
• Demonstrate tasks for each participating organisation and appropriateness
• Involvement of HR or Finance support in institutions?
• Narrative to complement factual info in B2 Section 5
• What do the organisations have to offer:
• Laboratories/Office Space, Technical expertise, Workshops, Other facilities
• Refer to the European Charter for Researchers and institutional endorsement
• ‘HR Strategy for Research (HRS4R)’ award - demonstrates competence for recruiting
and hosting
Competences, experience and complementarity of participating
organisations and their commitment to the programme
• Demonstrate complementarity across the network in terms of compatibility and
coherence between tasks
• Explain the level of commitment of the organisations involved – particularly non-
academic sector
• Info on Associated partners should be consistent with letter of commitmentKey Considerations for B2
Operational capacity of the organisations
• Use tables to present factual information – don’t repeat this in B1
• Profile of key staff, description of key infrastructure or technical equipment,
• Partner organisations contributing towards the proposed work
• Different information for Beneficiary and Partner
• If requested in Part A – be consistent
Ethics Issues
• Self-assessment in Part A and strategy in Section 6 of Part B
• Outside the 10-page limit – provide detailed strategy
• Crucial for all research domains - need to identify any potential ethical issues and describe they will be
addressed
• If no ethical issues identified explain how you came to this decision
• All proposals considered for funding subject to Ethics Review
• Read the Ethics Self-Assessment Guidelines
Letters of Commitment
• From Partner Organisations - On headed paper and signed with individual with appropriate authorityEvaluator Comments To read in your own time….
Evaluator Comments – Excellence Strengths Weaknesses • …the overview of the action as well as the • Innovative aspects of the training are not clearly objectives are clearly formulated and well- justified. balanced between scientific and training and • The interaction between academic and non- mobility. academic partners is not fully explored. • The research programme is clearly articulated, • Gender aspects of the research approach are not coherent and relevant regarding the field. convincingly demonstrated. The information • The individual research projects are sufficiently provided regarding gender issues does not refer analysed and in line with the research objectives. to clear provisions translated into concrete • Qualifications and supervision experience of the measures. supervisors are well evident. • The allotted time for some of the activities, e.g. • All participants have established strong synergies the conference, is not sufficiently considered. in the field. • The opportunities to pursue research careers at • The partners interact in actively. The roles of the high profile universities and in well-established non-academic partners are well-integrated. private enterprises are not sufficiently elaborated.
Evaluator Comments – Impact
Strengths Weaknesses
• The potential for meaningful contribution of the non- • The impact of the programme on the fellows’ careers beyond
academic sector is high and credible. the research field is not guaranteed.
• The dissemination strategy is concrete and appropriate and • The relevance of complementary skills to enhance careers of
offers a practical plan on how to share data resources and the fellows is insufficiently discussed.
results of the project with different target groups like partners, • The measures for dissemination of results have been
specialists and a general audience. described; however the dissemination plans are not quantified
• The communication and public engagement strategy are and no innovative activities are included. The focus on
clearly described, using different platforms and taking disseminating results within the small membrane scientific
advantage of special events like the European Researcher’s community is not clearly justified.
Night, which ensure a broad audience. • Outreach activities towards general public described, but
• The communication plans include a good number of actions relevance is not clearly discussed.
towards the industrial sector.
• Relevant outcomes for the economy and society are
adequately outlined.
• Long-lasting collaboration between sectors after the end of
the project are foreseen.Evaluator Comments – Implementation
Strengths Weaknesses
• The listed work packages are well defined with clear • The procedure for awarding doctoral degrees is not clearly
deliverables and milestones. presented.
• The individual ESR projects are well structured with well • The complementarity of the partners is not sufficiently
argued and realistic objectives, expected results, demonstrated.
secondments. The secondments are coherent with the • Key research facilities, infrastructure and equipment of both
objectives. beneficiaries are insufficiently detailed
• The basic principles of the management of the project are • The timing in the work plan is not convincing
clearly formulated: shared responsibility, joint ownership of • The management structure is not fully clear. It contains few
data and good communication. bodies and relies to a large extent on individuals instead of
• The management structure is clear and well structured with a boards/committees. The structure supporting this is not
Supervisory Board that guarantee an adequate balance clearly explained.
between scientific and technological training. • The scientific milestones and their means of verification are
• The management plan offers a realistic problem-solving not sufficiently defined.
mechanism in the event of disputes between partners with
the creation of an External Advisory Committee.
• The progress monitoring mechanisms and evaluation of
individual projects are clearly presented.Avoid the Pitfalls
Proposal Advice
Key points
Read all call documentation and the evaluation criteria
Consider any relevant EU policy documents
Make it easy for the evaluators to find the information
Evaluators will be experts, but not necessarily in your exact area
Use clear and concise language
Explain country/research area specific jargon
Include diagrams, images, tables if appropriate
Meet your consortium partners (virtual or otherwise)
Set clear expectations
Be clear on any budget redistribution
Research previous and current projects
Find colleagues to proof read drafts with the evaluation criteria
The proposal will take time to writeInsights from an NCP
• Proposal Development • Implementation
– Training the next generation of researchers – Ensure communications between EU offices, HR, finance,
– Institutions need to be clear on the what they have to payroll etc.
offer – Employment contracts must meet the requirements set in
– Make sure all partners are fully integrated and the GA
necessity is clear – Institution/supervisor give continuous support during the
– Clear expectations – level of involvement, financial fellowship
contributions – Make sure all beneficiaries understand the ESR eligibility
– Partner letters should be requested early criteria
– Remember ALL beneficiaries have – Be transparent regarding taxes, exchange rate, IP
management/indirect costs ownership etc.
– Be explicit and offer concrete examples – Be clear on use of research, training and networking costs
– Sustainability of the collaboration – Remember the Fellows are employees
– Think about management structure – Be clear on ownership of small equipment such as laptops
– Level of Ambition – needs to be ambitious, but – Have contingences in case of issues between ESR and
realistic supervisor
– Clarity of PhD length (beyond 36 months) and funding for
extra time
– Ensure ESRs understand obligations to programme and to
individual institutionFinal Thoughts • Ask Yourself ❖ Why does the EU/AC need a cohort of researchers training in this particular research area ❖ Where could the researchers end up working ❖ How can we design an DN to ensure that these researchers are employable in these areas ❖ How will this DN contribute to structuring research and doctoral training in EU/AC • REMEMBER - DN is not only a research project – training-through-research! • Read ALL Call documentation • Understand Goals and Expectations of Beneficiaries • Consider relevant EU policy documents • Fully appreciate the evaluation criteria • Be Kind to the Evaluators
Additional Information Policy Information Practical guidance • MSCA Green Charter • MSCA 2018-2020 Work Programme • MSCA Guide for Supervisors • 2020 Guide for Applicants • Horizon Europe • NET4Mobility+ ITN Guides • European Research Area • H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement • European Education Area • Marie Curie Alumni Association • European Commission 2020 Work Programme • EURAXESS REFEX (Career Development • The European Charter & Code for Researchers App) • Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training • Horizon 2020 and FP7 Funded Projects
Further UKRO MSCA Webinars: Doctoral Networks 2021 Session 1: Overview and Eligibility (12 May 2021) Comprehensive overview of the MSCA Doctoral Networks scheme, differences with the Innovative Training Networks scheme under Horizon 2020 Session 2: Practical matters (18 May 2021) Things to consider when developing your project e.g. (secondments, research trips, part time working, gender, dissemination and exploitation as well as synergies with other programmes) What can MSCA under Horizon Europe do to Boost Your Business? (1 June) Overview of the different initiatives and elements of the various MSCA funding opportunities that would be the most relevant for the non-academic sector MSCA NCP Drop In Sessions (to be announced) www.ukro.ac.uk for Registration Details
Thank you!
You can also read
