ERC infosession slides Luxinnovation Sep 2015.pdf
Transcript of ERC infosession slides Luxinnovation Sep 2015.pdf
© 2015 Luxinnovation
European Research Council Grants
Info-session and Workshop | 10 September 2015
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
ERC CHARACTERISTICS
PART I
3
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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?
© 2015 Luxinnovation
PATTERNS 2007-2015
PART I
8
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
ERC grants: Top regions
12
Number of StG, CoG, AdG and average success rates for top 50 localities
© 2015 Luxinnovation
ERC grants: top institutions
13
Top organisations hosting ERC Principal Investigators (Feb 2015)
© 2015 Luxinnovation
ERC FUNDING SCHEMES AND
PRINCIPLES
PART I
14
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
THE ERC PROPOSAL
PART II
20
© 2015 Luxinnovation
ERC applicants are excellent researchers. This is the very reason
why proposal-writing is troublesome
Your achievements and research are natural to you
21
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
Exercise 1
How would you evaluate a PI-driven grant proposal?
What aspects could be relevant?
24
© 2015 Luxinnovation
PART A – ADMINISTRATIVE PART
ERC Proposal Structure
25
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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)
© 2015 Luxinnovation
PART B – RESEARCH PROPOSAL
ERC Proposal Structure
27
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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.”
© 2015 Luxinnovation
EVALUATION PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
36
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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…
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
Exercise 2
Read three proposal abstracts. Match them with grades A,B, or C
44
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
Follow us on twitter: @NCPHORIZON2020
Subscribe to our newsletter: www.horizon2020.lu
47
Thank you!
Questions and answers
© 2015 Luxinnovation
BACKUP SLIDES
48
© 2015 Luxinnovation
Video: the ERC, step by step
49
https://vimeo.com/94179654
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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
© 2015 Luxinnovation
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