erc infosession slides luxinnovation sep 2015.pdf

© 2015 Luxinnovation

European Research Council Grants

Info-session and Workshop | 10 September 2015


What we will cover today

THEORY

ERC Characteristics

Measures of excellence

Patterns from 8 years of existence

Funding schemes and principles

PRACTICE

Proposal structure, evaluation criteria and procedure

Mentality, language and approach


ERC CHARACTERISTICS

PART I

3


ERC Characteristics (1/2)

First European fund for creative, “ground-breaking” research

Long-term individual grants: stress individual’s autonomy

One researcher (any nationality), one host institution (any country*), one project (any subject)

*Host institution must be in European Member State or Horizon 2020 Associated Country (Israel,

Norway, Iceland, Turkey…); Grants are “portable”

A substantial budget!

• EUR 1.7 bn/year for 2014-2016

• EUR 2.2 bn/year for 2017-2020

• 17 % of H2020 budget!

4

Basic introduction


ERC Characteristics (2/2)

Led by an independent Scientific Council (22 members)

Implemented by a dedicated agency (ERCEA)

Accountable to the European Commission

Evaluation by 25 panels (international peer review principle)

This governance structure has helped the ERC gain a solid international reputation!

5

Governance

http://erc.europa.eu/about-erc/organisation-and-working-groups/scientific-council


The most cited ERC grant publication

2000+ citations: Michael Grätzel, Swiss

Federal Institute of Technology

Lausanne.

Article on the efficiency increase of

dye-sensitized solar cells (DSCs),

Science, November 2011 (Yella et al.,

2011)

6


Measuring excellence

High output:

• Average 35 publications per project (18 in SH, 23 in LS, 48 in PS)

High ranking:

• Sample of publications: half part of the top 10% most highly cited publications in

their scientific discipline and year of publication (Annual Report 2014, p. 54)

• 11% in the top 1% most highly cited publications worldwide

• On average, a third of all ERC projects have reported an article or review that

ranks in the top 1% most highly cited publications worldwide

7

How do they know their funded projects live up to high expectations?


PATTERNS 2007-2015

PART I

8


ERC: patterns from 8 years of existence

The ERC prides itself in its reputation and efficiency

In FP7: launched 18 calls, evaluated 43 528 proposals, awarded 4 556 grants (success

rate 10%) to individuals at 600 host institutions in 30 countries

June 2015: 5000th grantee, Dr Iva Tolić, a Croatian cell biophysicist

“Whoever has will be given more”

• Strong concentration of grantees in a handful of institutions and geographical regions

BUT: Scientific Council hopes to “widen participation” – problem not lack of quality, but

lack of infrastructures and culture!

9


Impact on ERC grantees’ careers

2009-2014 study to assess impact of grant on professional development

StG: self-selection phenomenon (publications and independence similar

for selected and rejected candidates)

Difference: grantees have more time for research & have a more positive

outlook on life and their professional future!

10

A study sheds light on grantees’ career trajectories


The ERC’s exemplary action for gender equality

Only 25% applications from women

Tendency of lower success rate

ERC “Gender Equity Plan 2014-2020”

New in 2016 Work Programme:

• Limit of children for eligibility extension removed

• List of track record limited (quality vs quantity)

• Care of sick relative counts towards eligibility extension

11


ERC grants: Top regions

12

Number of StG, CoG, AdG and average success rates for top 50 localities


ERC grants: top institutions

13

Top organisations hosting ERC Principal Investigators (Feb 2015)


ERC FUNDING SCHEMES AND

PRINCIPLES

PART I

14


ERC funding schemes

15

Three main schemes from two years after PhD upwards

Starting

Grants

2-7 years after

PhD

Up to 2 m€

Consolidator

Grants

7-12 years

after PhD

Up to 2.75 m€

Advanced

Grants

achievements

in 10+ years

Up to 3.5 m€

Proof-of-Concept Grants (market potential, 150 k€)

5 year projects


Starting Grant expectations

Starting PI: potential for research independence, evidence of maturity (at least one

important publication without the participation of the PhD supervisor). A promising track

record of early achievements appropriate to field and career stage (significant

publications as main author in int peer-reviewed journals, record of invited presentations

in int conferences, patents, awards, prizes…)

TRACK RECORD: At least five publications in major international peer-reviewed multi-

disciplinary journals AND/OR leading international journals of respective research field

Monographs, patents, prizes, awards

Spend min 50% time on ERC project

16


Consolidator Grant expectations

Consolidator PI: have shown research independence and evidence of maturity; several

important publications without PhD supervisor. Promising track record of early

achievements. Same as Starting grant

TRACK RECORD: At least 10 publications in major international peer-reviewed multi-

disciplinary AND/OR leading international journals of respective research field

Monographs, patents, prizes, awards

Spend min 50% time on ERC project

17


Advanced Grant expectations

Advanced PI: active researcher, track record of significant research achievements in the

last 10 years. Be an exceptional leader, be original and have significant research

contributions

10 publications as senior author, 3 major research monographs, at least one translated

into another language (humanities, social sciences)

Alternatives: 5 granted patents, 10 invited presentations, 3 research expeditions…

18


2016 information

Starting Consolidator Advanced

Call ERC-2016-StG ERC-2016-CoG ERC-2016-AdG

Opens 29/07/2015 15/10/2015 24/05/2016

Closes 17/11/2015 02/02/2016 01/11/2016

Budget 485 m€ 605 m€ 540 m€

Approx. funded

projects

335 335 235

Approx.

budget/project

1,45 m€ 1,8 m€ 2,3 m€

Project starts January 2017 April 2017 July 2017

19


THE ERC PROPOSAL

PART II

20


ERC applicants are excellent researchers. This is the very reason

why proposal-writing is troublesome

Your achievements and research are natural to you

21


Approaching the ERC proposal - First steps

Plan the submission months in advance (the deadline is strict; you might not be

eligible for the same grant the following year)

Familiarize yourself with the ERC Work Programme, the Information for applicants,

and the proposal template (specimen)

Register at the Horizon 2020 Participant Portal

Use the word-format template (to download from the Participant Portal)

Prepare the supporting documents (Host commitment letter, PhD diploma,

certified English translation)

For questions, contact your internal support services, the National Contact Point,

or the ERCEA functional mailbox (Starting, Consolidator)

22

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.html#c,calls=level3/t/EU.1./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.1./1/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.3./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.4./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.2.1./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.1./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.2./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.3./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.4./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.5./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.6./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.2.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.2.3./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.3./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.1./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.3./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.4./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.5./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.6./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.7./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.4./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.5./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.7./0/1/1&level2/t/Euratom/0/1/1&CallIdentifier.Status/t/FORTHCOMING/1/1/0&CallIdentifier.Status/t/OPEN/1/1/0&CallIdentifier.Status/t/CLOSED/0/1/0&+PlannedOpeningDate/asc

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/erc/h2020-wp16-erc_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-guide16-erc-stg-cog_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/call_ptef/pt/h2020-call-pt-erc-stg-2016_en.pdf

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/cas/eim/external/register.cgi

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/call_ptef/pt/h2020-call-pt-erc-stg-2016_en.pdf#page=26

http://erc.europa.eu/funding-and-grants/national-contact-points

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]).


Exercise 1

How would you evaluate a PI-driven grant proposal?

What aspects could be relevant?

24


PART A – ADMINISTRATIVE PART

ERC Proposal Structure

25


Proposal Structure: Part A

26

General and administrative part; filled in online (Participant Portal)

General information Proposal title and acronym, duration, review

panel, keywords for evaluators

2000 character abstract (non confidential)

Declarations (financial capacity, absence of

fraud…)

List of participants (host organisation)

Administrative data of participating

organisationsHost institution, host department(s),

principal investigator (contact data,

ResearcherID)

The host organisations needs an

identification number (PIC) to submit the

proposal (it most probably has one)

Budget overview

Ethics issues tableHumans (cells, tissues, embryos, data),

Animals, Third countries, Environment, Dual

use

Ethics issues are self-declared at proposal

stage. Detailed scenarii for ethics issues are

provided (ERC Rules for Submission &

Evaluation)

Call specific questions (PhD date,

permission to publish data)

Excluded reviewers (up to three)


PART B – RESEARCH PROPOSAL

ERC Proposal Structure

27


Proposal structure: Part B

28

Part B1 is evaluated at the first, part B2 at the second stage.

Part B1: Synopsis

• Proposal summary (non confidential,

2000 characters)

A. Extended synopsis of the scientific

proposal (5 pages)

B. CV (2 pages)

C. Early achievements track-record

(2 pages)

Funding ID: On-going and submitted

grants and funding (no page limits)

Part B2: Scientific proposal (15 pages)

A. State-of-the-art and objectives

B. Methodology

C. Resources (including project costs)

– budget table; project duration, % of

time to be worked on project and spent

in EU

Host Institution Binding Commitment

letter (template provided)

Page limits applied strictly


Proposal Title, Acronym, and Summary

Title and acronym are short and clear (acronymcreator.net)

The summary is the same as the abstract from part A.

A crystal clear abstract explains the idea, the objective, and method

30

Part B1


Imagine applying for a dream job. The recruiters have to sift through

countless applications and make a first selection in a short period of

time.

The ERC proposal is no different.

31


A. Extended Synopsis

“A first impression does not get a second chance.”

A stand-alone part, not a complement: Only part read in the first evaluation step.

Page limit: 5 pages, references included

Use the templates

Respect formatting constraints (font, size, margins, page number)

Clear formatting counts: bullet points, breaks, subtitles

32

Part B1


B. Curriculum Vitae

A classical CV

Mention the exact date of your PhD award

The competition is high: sell yourself without bluffing

Report on career breaks

Page limit: 2 pages

33

Part B1


C. Early achievements track record

The Principal Investigator (PI) must provide a list of

achievements reflecting their track record appropriate to

their research field and career stage

No repetition from the CV is necessary

Choose achievements that are valued in YOUR domain

Publications seem to be the most relevant to evaluators

You can give explanations on your publications, if

necessary (explain if peer reviewing is not widely used

etc)

34

Part B1

Representative Publications (max 5 for StG,

max 10 for CoG) in international peer-

reviewed multi-disciplinary scientific

journals and/or in leading international peer-

reviewed journals

Research monographs (translations if

applicable)

Granted patent(s)

Invited presentations to peer-reviewed,

internationally established conferences

and/or international advanced schools

Prizes, Awards, Academy memberships


The Scientific Proposal

A. State-of-the-art and objectives

B. Methodology

C. Resources

35

Part B2 (only evaluated if the proposal is retained for the second stage)

Some evaluation comments:

“The objectives are not very novel or beyond the state of the art”

“The programme is not of particularly high risk/high gain research.”

“There are many issues that are not addressed in the extended synopsis to enable an informed assessment of

the feasibility.”

“While feasible, the proposal does not represent a major advance in the field.”

“The project is fascinating and innovative and will be pushing the frontiers.”

“The proposal is written very clearly, the PI has a clear vision of the goal and the way to reach the goal.”

“The project is clearly feasible.”


EVALUATION PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA

36


Evaluation procedure

37

ERC proposals

Step 1 Step 2

Part

B1

Parts

B1,B2

Peer review evaluation

panel

Chair Members

Remote evaluations

Panel meetings

Grade A

Grade B

Grade C

Resubmission embargo

Peer review evaluation

panel

Individual

assessments

Panel

discussion

Majority vote

Retained list

Reserve list

Not retained

INTERVIEW


Evaluation panels

25 panels, composed of 10-16 panel members and a distinguished panel chair

Chosen by the Scientific Council

May be assisted by remote referees (evaluators)

Final panel decision may deviate from individual evaluations

Names of chair and members made public prior to/after the call deadline

respectively but panellists should not be contacted

38

Panels per scientific domains

Physical Sciences and Engineering: 10 Panels

Life Sciences: 9 Panels

Social Sciences and Humanities: 6 Panels

Link: Names of panel chairs and members

http://erc.europa.eu/funding-and-grants/apply-funding/evaluation-panels


Formal Evaluation Criteria

Ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility

• Address important challenges

• Ambitious objectives, beyond state of the art

• high risk, high gain

Scientific approach

• Feasibility

• Appropriate research methodology; development of new methodology

• Time and resources well planned and necessary

39

1. Research Project


Ground-breaking? Examples

40

theory or concept (PE1)

method, tool, technology,

software, algorithm

device/instrument (PE)

insights (LS), findings (SH),

empirical discovery that alters

our understanding

synthesis of

existing/dispersed ideas

(SH)

material (PE), model

opening up a research

field

original hypothesis going

against current theory

combination of disciplines

to address a topic

New…


Formal Evaluation Criteria

Intellectual capacity and creativity

• Ability to propose and conduct ground-breaking research

• Prove creative independent thinking

• Achievements go beyond state of the art

• Leadership in training young scientists (Advanced Grant)

Commitment

• Prove commitment on ERC project (50% StG, 40% CoG, 30% AdG of time respectively)

41

2. Principal Investigator


Evaluation: grades and resubmission

Grades

A. “is of sufficient quality to pass to step 2 of the evaluation”

B. “is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to step 2 of the evaluation”

C. “is not of sufficient quality to pass to step 2 of the evaluation”

Restrictions to resubmission. Who can submit to the 2016 call?

42

Step 1 Step 2

A A

B B

C

2015

2015

2014

2015

2015

fundedResubmission rules

may vary from year

to year. These rules

apply to the 2016

call only.

Grade

obtained in

past calls


Step 2: the interview

Meet the panel that has evaluated your proposal in Brussels

3x more candidates invited that will be funded

Objectives: see if you stand behind your idea and can explain it clearly; ask further

questions on the proposal

Interviewees will be briefed on presentation type, focus etc (varies from panel to

panel). Total duration presentation, Q&A: 20-30 minutes

Possible questions: scientific aspects of the project; your person & background,

project management, use of resources, personnel, budget.

Be well groomed, show enthusiasm, speak without notes, foresee possible

questions (weak points of the proposal)!

43


Exercise 2

Read three proposal abstracts. Match them with grades A,B, or C

44


Exercise 3

Go on the ERC website and search for funded projects in your domain. To

what extent does the project comply with the ERC evaluation criteria?

http://erc.europa.eu/projects-and-results/statistics

45


Further reference

ERC 2015 Work Programme

ERC Calls

Guide for Applicants StG and CoG

Guide for Applicants AdG

ERC website

ERC newsletter

ERC Annual Report 2014

2014 Panel members

46

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/common/1617622-c_2014_5008_1_annex_erc_v2.0_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.html#c,calls=level3/t/EU.1./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.1./1/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.3./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.1.4./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.2.1./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.1./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.2./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.3./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.4./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.5./0/1/1&level5/t/EU.2.1.6./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.2.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.2.3./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.3./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.1./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.2./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.3./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.4./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.5./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.6./0/1/1&level4/t/EU.3.7./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.4./0/1/1&level3/t/EU.5./0/1/1&level2/t/Euratom/0/1/1&CallIdentifier.Status/t/FORTHCOMING/1/1/0&CallIdentifier.Status/t/OPEN/1/1/0&CallIdentifier.Status/t/CLOSED/0/1/0&+PlannedOpeningDate/asc

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/erc-2015-cog/1632604-info_for_applicants_stg_-_cog_2015_final_12112014_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/erc-2015-adg/1652608-information_for_applicants_to_the_advanced_grant_2015_call_en.pdf

http://erc.europa.eu/about-erc/organisation-and-working-groups/scientific-council

http://erc.europa.eu/media-and-events/newsletter

http://erc.europa.eu/media-and-events/publications

http://erc.europa.eu/evaluation-panels


www.luxinnovation.lu

www.linkedin.com/

company/luxinnovation-gie

www.facebook.com/

Luxinnovation.Making.Innovation.Happen

www.twitter.com/

Luxinnovation

Katharina Horst

Benjamin Questier

European Funding Programmes

LUXINNOVATION GIE

5, avenue des Hauts-Fourneaux

L-4362 Esch-sur-Alzette

T (+352) 43 62 63 – 1

[email protected]

[email protected]

Follow us on twitter: @NCPHORIZON2020

Subscribe to our newsletter: www.horizon2020.lu

47

Thank you!

Questions and answers

http://www.luxinnovation.lu/

http://www.linkedin.com/company/luxinnovation-gie

http://www.facebook.com/

http://www.twitter.com/



http://www.horizon2020.lu/


BACKUP SLIDES

48


Video: the ERC, step by step

49

https://vimeo.com/94179654


Resources –budget table

Direct costs: research, management, training and dissemination activities

• Personnel Costs, subcontracting, travel/subsistence, publication, IPR…

Indirect costs: cannot be identified as directly attributable to the project. 25% flat rate of

direct costs

• General management, office/lab space, maintenance, PCs..,)

A low budget is no advantage.

Salary rules of host apply; PI salary included if not covered otherwise

Include cost of international conferences etc…

50

Eligible direct and indirect costs


Some tips for your proposal

Approach: Prepare in the long run

Embrace the ERC uniqueness and show understanding of its concepts (go beyond state of

the art, high risk/high gain, feasibility)

Style: Focus on “I” (not the team), be concise (shorter than max)

Content: Promise a significant advance. Focus on risk assessment

No Gos: plan for industrial application, promise “only” incremental advances, discuss

context & background in great detail

51

erc infosession slides luxinnovation sep 2015.pdf

Documents