 Thank you. Good morning. Welcome, everybody. Let's start with the information session about the Marie Esclados category action, in particular individual fellowships. This is the third edition of this kind of event. And I'm really, very happy to see because there is really a lot of interest in this kind of information event because the room is full. Even this year, there was a waiting list with people who could not be able to attend because there was not much more places. The object of this event is basically to provide all of you with an overview of the main characteristics and features of the Marie Esclados action, individual fellowships, as well as to provide all of you with some suggestions and tips to allow you to prepare an excellent and successful proposal. To this end, we have three speakers. The first one or the first speaker is Joseph Nebel. She is the EU project manager and the funding advisor of the research service here in the Citadella campus. He will be the person in charge of providing you this overview of all the main characteristics of the individual fellowships. Let me also introduce the other people in the other campus because I think you are coming from different campus here at UPF. They are placed at the end. Monsimorillas, she is the person, the contact person in the campus, Mar. Belen, she is at the campus of Poblano. There is somebody else in Poblano campus who is Paloma Venament. She is not here today, but you can contact in any case. Maria Gill, she is a colleague of Joseph Neogia in the Citadella. She is more specialized in law and neuroscience. The second speaker is Georges Genolis. He is professor of the Department of Humanities working in the area of digital heritage and virtual reality. He has been and he is evaluated as individual fellowships. She will explain the process, how it is working, evaluation, and she will provide you very useful suggestions and tips about how to prepare your proposals. The third speaker is Judith Chamorro-Servin. Judith is over there. She is beneficiary of a Marie Curie standard European fellow at the Department of Information and Communications Technologies. Her research focuses on biomedical engineering in the field to solve medical problems by the use of applied mathematics. She will speak about her project and about her experience in preparing the proposal. She got a very good mark, 29.4 points, so I'm sure that she will be able to explain you how she did it. At the end, after the third speakers, there will be 20, 30 minutes for your questions. The presentations will be available on the website and even the session is broadcasted. So this will be also available for you. You want to see again. Well, I'm finished here. Let's start with the presentation and you said you would be the first one. Thank you, Eva. Good morning, everybody. Logistic programs. Thanks for being here with us today and also thank you to those that are following the session online. Marie Curie Individual Fellowships are part of the Horizon 2020 Framework Program, which started in 2014 and which runs until next year, and are part of what is called Excellent Science, which means that you have to develop a good project that goes beyond the state of the art and it has the potential to provide a big impact to the community, not only to the research community, but also to the society. About the presentations that you don't need to take pictures or anything like that, we will also be sending them to you today or tomorrow, maybe, over this week. So the main objectives of Marie Curie are to allow researchers at any stage of their career to acquire complementary skills to their research and also to have a mobility in three different ways. Intersectoral, so it means that if you are used to doing one kind of research, you may move to another sector. International one, because you are required to move to another country. And finally, interdisciplinary, because you are supposed to work with people from other disciplines in order to improve your skills and to make your project stronger. It provides excellent working conditions, as we will see later, especially for those who are in Spain, it provides a post-doc wage, which you will never see again. And also it provides opportunities for those living out of Europe to return. And for those who have been on leave or who have been away from the academia for a long time, they provide good opportunities also to return to the academia. And finally, it's important to remember that international fellowships, in addition to your research project, you need to also think about a career development plan. So in addition to provide the typical research project, you need to consider what training you will receive in the institution where you will go and with the supervisor that you will have. In this regards, the main requirement that you have to apply for this call is that you need to be either a PhD post-doc or have four years of full-time experience in research. Full-time experience in research is considered up to the moment that you finish the master that allows you to enroll to a PhD. And it has a bottom-up approach, so it means that any kind of project from any field, any idea you may have, is eligible for this kind of fellowship. So we have basically two kinds of Marie Curie grants. One of them, the most popular one, are those that you move from a European country to another European country or to a non-European country to a European country. In this regards, there are several kinds. The most popular one is the Standard European Fellowships, which is what applies to 80% of you, so that you don't have any particular circumstance. You are doing your research career in academia and you want to move to another country. If it was the case that you have been out of the academia for more than one point five years in the last, for more than one year in the last year and a half, then you would be eligible to apply for the career panel that provides more opportunities for people like if you have been in a maternal leave or if you have been working or not working at all or in other institutions that are not academic. And also, we have the Interaction Panel for those people that are away from Europe, from the EU, and that would like to return to Europe. Depending on the kind of Marie Curie that you choose, you can decide to prepare a project between 12 to 36 months. Typically, you would try to apply for a project that maximizes the time that you can be opposed to, because it is quite challenging to get them, so you want to have a project as long as possible. And what is important is that you have to choose within one of those so you cannot apply. If you fulfill several conditions, you have to decide to which one of these you will apply. And then there is another kind of fellowship, which is that you will move from a country that is not in Europe, spend there between one and two years and then return to Europe. In this case, you need to be a national from an European country, so this is an important requirement. And you also need to have in mind that the return phase is mandatory. So if you go to Harvard and then you're offered that a very good contract, I'm afraid that you will have to ask them to postpone it for one year, because otherwise you have to return all the money to the European Union because you are breaking the contract. So this is something very important that please keep in mind if you are applying to these fellowships. Any, whatever the kind of fellowship you choose, the project that you have to prepare is the same templates are the same and they all work more or less the same with the only difference of the duration of the project. Then we were talking about this mobility rule. This is, as I said, this is the main requirement. The country where you are going, you should not have been living there for more than 12 months, so one year in the last three years or if you are doing the reintegration or career development plan or the career restart panel for three years in the last five years. It doesn't need to be like a year, like a year long, you can have like three months, three months and three months or four months, four months, four months, that would be 12 months, so you would not be eligible. However, holidays or short research stages there do not count for these months. And, well, I guess I have already told that everybody who has a PhD or four years of full-time experience can be Marie Curie Fellow. It doesn't matter at the moment, it doesn't matter the career stage that you are, so you will be competing with people from all ages. However, the important thing is that your CV and your project is what is considered, so even though you will be competing with maybe senior people, you need to worry if they have a much stronger curriculum than yours because what is important there is what your CV is, what your project is and the impact that the project will have on your career development. So if you are just finishing your PhD, it's a good opportunity to apply. And actually, if you can see these graphs, the greatest success rate is for applicants that are just finishing the PhD up to nine years of postdocs. So if you are in this position, just go ahead and apply. Don't worry about that. As you can see, if you are more than 15 years, the success rate is quite low because the training company of the project, if you have been in academia for 20 to 25 years, okay, you can still learn something, it's less relevant than if you just arrived. And as I was saying, and this is probably what attracts most of the people, why Marie Curie are so successful and have so much people want to apply to those, because if you are in Spain, you get like 4,600 euros per month, which you can look at any other postdoc opportunity and there is no another that matches this wage. You also get 600 euros per month for 800 euros per month for research. So at the end, if you have a two-year project, this amounts to 19,000, which is also quite a good amount. And also if you have kids or you are married or you are in a particular family situation, you get a top-up to your wage. So it's, I mean, the wage is good and you still get a better one. And what is asked for you, in addition to the research project, which we will talk a bit later and also Judith and Georges will make emphasis on that, is the training component, because you are all very good at your research topics, probably nobody else knows better than you what they are about, sometimes what projects fail is in the training component, because sometimes it's not so obvious. So you need to consider that you have to find a supervisor that matches your profile, that can help you in research, that can provide you new techniques, new instruments, new methodologies, new theories, etc. But you also need to find a group or if you come to UPF, like a department that is a power-filling seminar that will provide you with training in how to write scientific articles that you can take advantage of the services, for instance at UPF, to learn about ethical issues, the staff of the library on how to prepare a good CV or how to improve in your oral communications, etc. It's also important that you as a fellow bring knowledge to your supervisor, to the institution where you're going, so there is a double exchange of knowledge. In these regards, it's important that all these transfers link to your project. So if you are doing a project in medieval history, if you are an expert in contemporary history, maybe you need to elaborate why you want to go with this supervisor that is not an expert in your topic. It may happen that it may be a good match, but it's not obvious initially, so you will have to elaborate on that. And also, it allows you to go to events, to organize your own events, which is an important part when you talk about the impact that your project will have. And then another important aspect of Marie Curie's, if you've read the Guide for Applicants, it's the word, Secuments. This is a word that the European Union or whoever wrote this Guide for Applicants just invented, intended. And the meaning of that is that during your project you're allowed to move to another institution for up to three or six months, depending on the length of your project, and spend some time learning from them with another supervisor over there. This can be either in a single period, or you can be there for three months and then come back here or just say, I will spend one month in the first year and one month in the second year, for instance, and say what you will learn there, why this second man is meaningful to your project. So if you've read the Guide for Applicants, you have seen that they say it's almost mandatory. I mean, it's not like this. We have a lot of projects that have been granted and which do not have second man's. So don't just put it there if it's not meaningful, if it is, if you find an interesting supervisor that can match what you do here, then this is an opportunity to also learn other skills and maybe you don't have them here. You don't have them here. And to make it easy for you, like the difference between a second man and a short visit, I will not go through everything of here, but this is important because sometimes we've seen evaluation reports where it says, the second man is not really a second man is a short visit. The main difference is that second man's have a clear impact in your project that if you would not go to that institution or you would not have that supervisor, your project wouldn't have sense. You would not continue with your research and that you have plenty in advance. You say, okay, in that month I will go to that place and I will do this because this is the moment to do this. And with this supervisor is the only person or one of the few persons that can help me to do this. The main requirement about second man's is that they need to be in the European Union or in an associate country. So they cannot be in the US, they cannot be in Australia or in America. And one of the things that Marie Curie's put a lot of emphasis in are several cross cutting concepts like the responsible research and innovation. This is part of your project. You need to be aware of ethical issues that your project will have of whether there is any gender dimension that you need to take into account. In this regard it's important to differentiate between gender and sex. It's not the same. Sex is biological characteristics of a man or a woman because they have certain differences. However, what gender is is like the social meaning that we give to these differences. The typical example in these regards in these topics are there was projects that were evaluating safe issues in safety belts in cars. They would never consider pregnant women so what happened when there was a crash? Pregnant women had more injuries than men. So this is something that for one project you need to take into account if it makes sense. If you are studying things that you do not have and if you're doing a maths project then maybe there is no gender dimension but still write it in your application so that evaluators know that you've taken this into account and you just consider that there is no gender dimension in your project. Just write that short sentence so that they can do the check and say okay, this person is aware of the gender issues in research. Here you have a lot of videos and documents that talk about how to address gender issues in Marie Curie's and in research projects. They are quite interesting and people that have been using them they say that they are relevant for them and that have helped them a lot so feel free to browse them and to take some ideas from there. Now moving to how to prepare the application which is probably also something that is important for you. The first thing is that the deadline is 11 September so we are almost in June. We have three months and a half there is August in between 11 September is national holiday in Catalonia, we will not be here. Plan ahead please and also talk to your project managers and plan internal deadlines to how to submit it in advance etc. Because even if it may look stupid there are excellent projects that don't make the deadline and that are just not submitted and this is always of time for you and it is also always of time for us because we are devoting resources to projects that are not finally submitted. So if you are willing to submit the project at UPF talk to your project manager depending on the campus and as I said please plan ahead and make sure that you meet all the deadlines that you have and the application is I would say quite simple to prepare you have to prepare 10 pages of your research project in these three chapters that you have and then there is another part where you put your CV you explain about how good your institution it is and if there are ethical issues you address them. About the ethical issues maybe worth noting that the 17th and 18th of June we are organizing a session with people from the European Commission coming here and it will be in the main campus and if you look at our website you can register there and you are actually welcome to do it because you will receive information from people that are actually dealing with these issues and moving to the research part as you have seen from the previous slide there are three chapters the excellence one which is the first one that you see counts for 50% of the project does this mean that you have to put all your effort here? No, because as we will see in one of the last slides this is a very competitive grant so if you name for the best in each and every one of the chapters you will not make it 50%, 30%, 20% it doesn't matter you have to get a full score in the three parts in excellence is where you speak about what are your project objectives, about your methodology how you will address the issues why is it relevant that this project is funded why your supervisor is the best one for you please get in touch with your supervisor and also you can address your research managers that can provide you some information as well about the departments where you explain the training that you will do so you have to talk about your career development plan over the project and this needs to be really in detail you cannot say I will teach I will attend courses I will speak with my supervisor every two weeks I will teach in this course which is a a master's or a PhD course etc I will attend this course in grantsmanship I will speak with this person in the library who will tell me how to prepare a CD that will give me more opportunities to receive other grants etc so you need to provide a lot of detail otherwise evaluators will know or feel that you have just put something standard and that you don't really know how your institution works and also one of the points that it's quite hard to for you it's the last one and we've highlighted these three words in red because it's where you have to say okay you have to show that you are able to develop the project that you are and here what you have to say is okay I've over my research career I have done this I have submitted these papers I have done this it's like a little bit to speak about your CD showing that you have the skills that will let you develop this project because as you can see it's like during the fellowship and this is the difference between the first topic the first chapter of this second section where you have to explain why having this project is important for you in the future so you will say if I take this project I will have received training in these research topics in these soft skills I will have learned my network of contacts will be much larger so I will have the opportunities to organize conferences with other people to prepare projects with other people that I do not know I do not know now etc so it looks quite similar as the previous one to make this difference like the first one is during the project and the other one is after the project so you have to think about the future and also here you need to be specific when you say okay this will allow me to take a position of associate professor or this will allow me to apply to which grants are they Spanish grants are they ERC etc the more precise you are the small like very little points make the difference between the the excellent ones that are funded and the excellent ones that are just there but they are not funded so the more precise you are the better and then the other aspects that you need to talk here are impact is the impact of your project which this sometimes is a bit difficult for you because you are very good at saying okay my project is very good and we need to do this but why we need to do this and how will you show that this is important so will you write articles in what topics and in what journals so it's not only saying I will write an article but okay I will aim at this Q1 journal in my in my topic you need to be like again very precise and you need to take into account the difference between 2.2 and 2.3 what's the difference between dissemination of your research project and what's the difference between communication of your research project communication addresses like normal people who may have no idea at all about what you are doing to whom you cannot talk in really technical aspects maybe if you are doing molecular and something about reactors etc if you talk about what potassium does to gold and in terms in what terms people don't understand so you are writing an article maybe in a journal in a normal journal or you are going to a school and talk with last great people students to let them know about what they can do in their life you upload a video in YouTube explaining about what you do etc you are not looking for feedback from them you are just explaining and to make the project reach the society who at the end of the day is paying for your project and on the other side dissemination is what you are more used to do going to conferences writing articles organizing conferences etc and you also need to remember about the exploitation part of the project so why once you finish your project what will happen with your results will anyone else be able to use them to progress in other stages will you be able to prepare an APP or to have a patent or something like this if it applies you need to think about what will happen with your project and here is what I was just saying and also some resources for you to look and to put some nice words that the European Commission likes and it's always important to put communication, to put dissemination, to put exploitation, these words need to be there at some point because evaluators always look for them so this is all for you to read and then the last part which it only counts for 20% and you always do it at the very last it's what you always do at the very end and you maybe only have one page or two pages okay, this is also important it counts for your application as much as the other part this is where you explain how you organize your work I need two years of project because in the first six months I will do this in the next six months I will do that so you need to actually justify that the money that they are giving to you is needed for your project and then you need to talk about any risks that your project will have all projects have risks so if you don't find one just give it another go because a risk is it may be that you need a certain source and this is not available because it's in Philippines and you cannot go to Philippines because you're not allowed to get into the country whatever so this is a risk and you have to say how will you overcome this risk and finally you need to talk about if you are coming to UPF then again get in touch with us because we will help you and we will give you some some insights as I said this part typically takes like from 1.5 to two pages more or less impact would be also two pages and the first chapter it's between four or five pages more or less if you have your excellent in eight pages then you have to summarize it because otherwise you will get five points in excellence but you will get zero in other sites so you will not get the project and one thing that you are requested to include in your application is the Gantt chart there are many ways of doing a Gantt chart you can do a very sophisticated one or you can do a very simple one like this one don't waste a lot of time on doing that because at the end evaluators, most of them if they print the project they print it in black and white so if you have a lot of colors it doesn't matter, it all looks the same and if it's like very strong colors like very red and green it will look like black so it doesn't matter and here we put some examples of Gantt charts with different different ideas we've chosen the simplest one so that you see that these are all from actually successful projects so this shows you that you don't need to spend two days working on the Gantt chart just do something simple that people can understand and it's useful also for you to organize your plan and then finally some tips on how to prepare your proposal that the call opened a couple of months ago we said that the day is 11 September then in February you will have the results hopefully they will be successful then you will have two or three months to prepare the agreement with the institution we will help you with that, don't worry and then you can start your project from April or May next year and you have one year to start the project so you can consider that you will be able to start it from April May till March or April 2021 as general tips of course this is very important told to your project manager you have to always try to make your project relevant to European Union so maybe at the start of the project you can say this is what I'm going to do and why is this important because in the European Commission there was one session about refugees and John Kerr said and I'm talking about refugees so my project is important because the president of the commission said or try to find a way to make it relevant a lot of tips will not go about all of them I think the most important one is be clear in all parts do not repeat anything even if some parts look repetitive do not repeat anything because then you are losing space and also be nice to evaluators I would say so don't do strange things with formats just use a normal a normal phone use with ball, use with italics with underline but don't start doing a lot of different phones because as George used to say their job is not to evaluate they have their own job and then they are asked to evaluate so they do it in the subway when their kids are sleeping in the plane and they want it to be easy and something quick and what I guess it's important to you and this may be a little bit of a disappointment but George will encourage you to apply are the cut off scores from the last five years as you will see you need to aim for 100% points so you cannot so you have to do a perfect one because there is only one panel which is below 90 so all other and it's 89 so you need to aim for perfection so this means that you have to start working from your project you need to start working now talk to your supervisor so get feedback from him or from her talk to your research office get feedback from your project managers if you have a friend who has already submitted a Marie Curie no matter if has been successful or not ask for feedback from them as well from people who are not in your field because anything that you can receive this is important it's important and this year as well the Spanish ministry has offered a service of revision which runs until the 6th of July which allows you to send your application and they will provide your feedback you need to do it through us through the research office so you will have to send us your research proposal and we will be able to send it to the evaluators we have been warned that proposals that are sent in the 6th of July may not be in time to be evaluated because they are expecting a huge number of proposals so they have also limited time the sooner you send them to us the sooner we will be able to give you feedback and also to send them to these external evaluators and well this is for the global fellowship which is still harder to get but again, George will encourage you to apply to them and how can we help you from UPF most of you probably have already found a supervisor if you have not let us know, explain us your topic, explain us your interest and we will try to find a supervisor that match your research profile we will guide you through the process and give you advice we have some material that we provide only to those that are applying from UPF some templates with useful documents some fact sheets some whatever we will revise your project so just get in touch with us and please follow this deadline because at the moment we have more than 50 people willing to apply we have limited resources we are 5 or 6 people only working on that and we are not only working on that we will have other projects as well so please the most important thing is 11th of September it's national holiday we will not be here, we will not be answering emails so everything must be done by the 10th of September of course if you do it in advance much better because we will have time to go through it, to review to find any potential last minute issue and to address it and of course we are always willing to help you and any of us will be willing to answer any questions that you may have which you can actually address to this email address here putting this subject and SCA and the department where you are willing to address the questions so that it helps us not to have to read all the questions and well that's it from for my side, I think I made the time and we'll have time for questions later on and now I pass the floor to Marges so thank you for being here it's the fourth time I think I'm doing this presentation the last years and I'm very happy to do it because it seems it has with a lot of effort of the students and of the team here of the university has brought results who have told me that last year just in the humanities the UPF had four Marie Curie fellowships which is a very good score specifically for humanities it used to be very difficult for the people coming out from human sciences to set up good proposals but now I think the younger students they are really improving their engineering skills because you need some engineering skills that are not included in the humanities background in order to set up a proposal in the overall UPF had eight successful proposals which is also a very good score for the size of the university and for the competition that is around Europe so as said Marie Curie is a particular wider set of programs that are aiming to improve and to develop the European research and promote researchers mobility training and excellence please keep these three worlds it's mobility training and excellence and it also promotes through the international part of the program the mobility of the researchers training and European excellence worldwide again not these three worlds and I I'm just insisting in that because what you really have to do is not simply to have a great idea is that there is somebody who pays for this idea and the one who pays for this idea has its own priorities so you can have the greatest idea of the world you can have in your science it I'm coming from my background is management, cultural heritage and digital technologies and environment but most of you are also from different sciences you can have the best idea you can in your field but if the one who pays for that is not satisfied you are not going to get it he has his own priorities and he spends public money of the taxpayers so he has to justify to the society what you are proposing is important for those who pay and those who pay are the European citizens not the national states not the member states so you have to prove that your proposal has a European added value why don't you do that in your country in the place you are this is where mobility comes from so my presentation will give you a general idea I'm going to be shorter this time because Joseph has covered most of the aspects and some tips of success or trumps to avoid I have participated in various evaluation exercises in Marie Curie and other projects and monitoring and I'm trying to bring you this exercise from the point of view of somebody who takes a proposal he doesn't know anything about that he doesn't know the person who is proposing because if he does he has to exclude himself there is a conflict of interest if he has any relationship and he has to understand in 10 pages in a short CV that what you propose awards the effort and the money as it is allocated so if you read at the guide the current guide that has changed a little bit from the previous exercises what is the expected output which is also the criteria of evaluation for the evaluator the first at the researcher level is increased set of skills both research related and transferable ones leading to improved employability and career prospects both in and outside academia increased in higher impact AI input more knowledge and ideas covered into products and services greater contribution to the knowledge based economy and society that's a copy paste from the official guide of the commission as you can see the most important the first one of the evaluation criteria of the expected output is the set of skills that you are going to acquire and how this will be useful for the research and development and in the society the second is at the organization level enhanced cooperation and stronger networks better transfer of knowledge between sectors and disciplines keep these worlds to intersectorial interdisciplinary towards interdisciplinary only to use superficially some tools of another discipline is to understand different methodologies and you have to prove that people who read it they belong to various domains and depending on where they are they are experts to one thing or another so if you just touch superficially something that you don't prove that you understand it probably you will get a weakness so you have really to understand what you write better transfer of knowledge between boosting research and development capacity among participating organizations you have also as Josep said before you have to prove that what you are going to do will transfer knowledge and skills from one organization to the other if you are going from I don't know a university in Germany to UPF or the contrary you have to prove that you are going to transfer knowledge from one to another so you have to prove that there is something here that there isn't there and there is something there that there is not here that's how you prove it and you have to explain how that missing thing to provide and bring it to the organization that you are going and what feedback you are going to provide to the other organization then at system level increase in international interdisciplinary and intersectoral mobility of researchers in Europe strengthening of Europe's human capital base with more entrepreneurial and better trained researchers better communication of results to society increase in Europe's attractiveness as a leading destination for research better quality research and innovation contributing to Europe's competitiveness and growth please take all that into account when you are thinking of your proposal you could think of a proposal that I am going to study the manuscripts that you know of the 18th century in a monastery in comparison with other monasteries etc but that is not enough it could be very interesting for you you have to persuade why this is interesting for the taxpayer to pay it it's a very important thing in what part and why this is not at a national level or at a regional level and it has to be paid at a European level what that offers to our to Europe how this is linked to somehow with the improvement of competitiveness and growth is that it is not easy always for humanities to prove that in other sciences it's more difficult but there are many ideas how you can prove it there are things that are sectors that are linked such as tourism such as that is attracted by cultural assets such as education such as interdisciplinary impact you are producing something in language that can be used for example in informatics or something like that that depends on your idea but you have to address these issues and this is what the evaluation of this year is including the excellence is the quality of the selection recruitment process for the researchers transparency, composition organization of selection committees, evaluation criteria equal opportunities quality of the research options offered by the program in terms of science, interdisciplinarity intersectionality and level of transnational mobility quality of career guidance and training including supervision arrangements and training impact that is the 30% that is the excellence but this is what is considered excellence is not only the excellent idea it is the impact is enhancing the potential in future career prospects of the researchers what Joseph said before what you are planning to do with that skills that we are going to acquire as concrete as possible if you have something very concrete it gives you a point if you have a plan it gives you a point if you avoid to say anything you do not gain a point you are just missing something that will miss you some precious points of evaluation at the end of the day aligning practices of participating organizations with the principles by EU for human resources development and research and innovation read them go in and read them what the principles are for human resources that is the gender equality there are many things that Joseph explained before quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the results and quality of the proposed measures to communicate the results to different target audiences here I will give you some tips how you can exploit and disseminate your results it is not only academia it is the private sectors there are the professional chambers of each sector for example the chamber of medicine the chamber of economists or of there are there are also other stakeholders you have to identify the stakeholders in the field this is where the sectoral is also very important to identify the stakeholder in your field of science and somehow say that I am going to provide them with my results and they will be interested in that for that and for that reason and then the quality of the proposed measures to communicate the results to different target audiences the commission wants not only you know that there are a lot of jokes of many anti-european movements in Europe why the commission pays for research and they are saying oh they are paying for research in the size of the concombers for example which is not true you know that all of us here they know that this is not true because this is the research that are very specific things but they want reasonably to explain to the European citizens why this is important for them why your research is important for them if you can use any possible media especially social media and you prove that this is something that you know how to manage to multiply the impact through the social media use public presentations use presentations in stakeholders meetings in villages in towns, in countries in the mass media if it is possible and you can get access to the radio through depending on the kind of research you are doing I've seen in robotics presentations in mass media or in local media in press that's a very important thing for somebody to read that you are going to do and to prove that you can you have identified clearly the media and the target audiences of the wider public where you are going to address include if you can participative communication process somehow involve as much as as much as you can stakeholders and the public to your research that's a plus try it plus for somebody to read that I'm going for example to organize an open day where I will present if you are doing a research in tourism for example I don't know research in medicine I will invite the people that having this disease or I will invite the people who are working in that sector or just an open day in a village where I'm going to go and organize something I will create something participative through internet you can do also that if you have the skills you can create a participative platform a page where people can participate in your research finally quality and efficiency of the implementation effectiveness and appropriateness of the work plan appointment conditions of researchers competence of the participant to implement the program I will insist in that the last ones the work plan has to be not too detailed but not contradicting to not have contradictions in your work plan that's a weakness if somebody identifies that you say I will finish that in that date and then you will start something that presupposes that you will have finished that the previous one and you put it earlier you will note that it has to be coherent and it has to be realistic that's the two important things not very detailed but coherent and realistic and flexible that's the risk management in cases that you face any pre-visible change and the last the competence of the participant to implement the program they don't ask you to have a lot of titles or skills or they just want to see that skills you have meet the requirements of the research you propose that's the point if you have a huge CV but you propose a research that a project that this huge CV does not fit with the project you will have a problem you can have a very small CV with few publications very limited publications or actions but it is exactly what needs of the project you are going to do so they are not evaluating persons reading the CV they are just verifying that you can do the job and you can do it well because you did some things in the past and you can document it so to make an overall besides the great research idea that I'm sure that each one of you has a the main issues are that is a training thing it's not a research by itself project it's to improve your training to improve your skills and competences is the European added value it is a mobility you have to prove why you are doing that in the European level is interdisciplinarity and intersectoral versus single discipline projects and finally communication, dissemination to academy and and society by all means participative approach of stakeholders or citizens in your project so the overall threshold is 70 out of 100 but of course it is all about excellence and as you have seen before if you don't get more than 90 up points you will not get your proposal it's over 90 92, 93 that you have to get successful successful proposals, my experience in ECOSOC have reached the zone of 4.5 to 5 to all criteria if you follow less than this in one criteria you cannot manage it the evaluators are called to evaluate each one of the things that I talked before following a strength, a weaknesses scheme they write down for each one of criteria and sub criteria something very simple, strengths and weaknesses what is the strong point and what is missing the important thing is to avoid to have weaknesses each weakness that is marked, that's something missing some contradictions, whatever costs you some 0.1 or 0.2 that depends on the on the proposal and the the agreement of the evaluators of course the people who are going to evaluate your proposal are coming from various backgrounds and professional origins some are not researchers only professionals in their sector are experts in something they have different scientific sensitivities, don't insult other sciences don't I've seen that don't take positions like that I don't mean the word insult but somebody can take something like pejorative for his own field try to avoid that they have an overall view impression and comparative approach it is a game of details there is a negotiation process which is limited by personal strong views, complementarity and finally compromise among the evaluators and there are also extreme cases and processes to deal with when there are strong disagreements between them the proposals in numbers in 2018 it was 9830 in 2017 800 less in 2016 a bit less they are growing up probably this year they will go up of 10,000 however it is one of the most successful projects of Europe and the budget is also increased this year in the next programs for the Marie Curie fellowships and the ATN projects and it is a good thing that in the level of Europe we understand that this is what creates our common excellence in all the fields that are coming in 2018 it was 7000 in standard European fellowships 352 in career start model 561 in reintegration panel in society and enterprise 173 that is the recent data choose the right panel depends on your idea and your proposal to choose the right panel some statistics that could be a bit disappointing for you but it is not exactly like that sorry I have to turn my glasses here it is just taking into an example that 86% of the total has been in the general fellowships and 40% of the total was in the global fellowship the success rate was not more than 16% in this year approximately it is probably a bit lower now because there are more proposals and less and less and more competition however don't desperate the real statistics are different a small number of proposals that are not significant is below or around the threshold or just very bad out of competition that in my experience is around the 30% of each call however it can vary considerably depending on the year and the topic and the call 30% the vast majority of the proposals are acceptable, good above the threshold but far from the fundable zone another 30% approximately the remaining 30% to 35% are your real competitors if you can do an excellent proposal make the effort if you are just going to put a trash to see the reaction for the next year I suggest you not to do it because you mostly create a problem of reputation to your organizations and your supervisors then it gives you any advantage if you want to make the effort to make a good proposal that probably will follow in the 30% that are not in the fundable zone sometimes it works to do the effort it works to do the effort because even though next year you will have a good feedback and you can come back and improve your proposal if you want really to invest time to do your proposal but if you are having an excellent idea if you are having a very good proposal your real competitors your real chances are one out of three it's not bad it's rather good chances to succeed a proposal that fulfills all the criteria that addresses all the issues that have not important weaknesses it's on the upper scale it has one out of three let's say to succeed so don't forget that we are talking about excellence and you compete with the excellence in Europe so if you feel so you have one about one of 2.5 chances to succeed some tips don't forget success does not depend only on the excellence of the research proposals remember again that this is training you have to be persuasive in the training field not only you need an adequate supervisor and the corresponding institution but you have to prove it it's not only to say that UPF is a good institution of course it is good for your proposal and your research I mean write down this is what the university offers to me these labs, these installations these access, these specific know-how you must prove that you know how to implement you have a consistent implementation plan and you are aware of the risks and demonstrate it clearly don't be afraid to talk about the risks but just have because if an evaluator reads something that is uncertain for example I'm going to the last one justify that you have access assured to what you need for your project I've read a lot of proposals that they said I'm going to study these manuscripts these do you have access to that do you have a permission for that do you have an agreement of the local stakeholder the archaeological services is that open you're doing something in the rainforest I don't know can you get there just prove it and that what you get you are going to make it also as open as possible I understand there are many things that are covered by copyrights the commission understands that or there are ethical limitations specifically in when you are doing research intangible heritage or medical research or and it involves persons names etc if there are explain them it's not rejected just explain what the limitations are what we are going to make public what are the ethical limitations and how you are going to deal with that you need to address all the topics however boring they seem to you impact European added value white public scientific dissemination etc if you don't address them you will lose your time it's a pity but you will lose your time if you have topics that you do not address there will be weaknesses that will cut you points and you can have a very good proposal that will not get funded don't forget that that is always taxpayers money and the commission want the taxpayers to know what they pay for don't tire the valuations the evaluators make it easy for them to analyze the necessary information and the corresponding sections refer to it when it is presented already elsewhere to avoid repetition and save pages just a small tip sometimes one thing you said it for training for example or for what you are going to do for dissemination in the first part of excellence because it's part of your proposal of the core of your proposal if you want to win space don't repeat it again when you are going back to the session of the you are going down to the session of the dissemination but make a reference a short reference as I told in the page one I will do that I've read a lot of proposals and you know sometimes the evaluators are reading rapidly or they are going to they have to fight for that because I was saying the guy told that he talked about that but it was before and the other was saying why he doesn't read it here why it is not under this section you know it's a very simple thing to make life easier and to not make them to feel that something is missing where it should be and maximize in all criteria the strengths no significant weaknesses are allowed there are a lot of small weaknesses okay forgot something that is I don't know minor importance but for the successful proposal if there is a significant weakness it is it will not pass it can reduce considerably your chances so this is all I wanted to tell you wish you good luck encourage you to participate I know that you have excellent ideas so and you have the the capacity to do it so do it and just to give you a last view that's how for example an evaluation report is writing strengths weaknesses and score each evaluation is doing the evaluator is doing that for its evaluator for his own from his own point of view and then compromise so keep in mind that this is your evaluator scheme what he has to produce don't give him weaknesses give him only strengths don't forget anything that could be could cost you the success for a small 0.1 point of of rating so this is I think all I had and of course were open for any questions or whatever you want to know more about thank you will be the questions after Judith comes good morning as they told you I am a Marie Curie fellow but they did not tell you that right before and I did not get I was above the threshold but I did not get so somehow it's not to encourage you but to encourage if you do apply again so going to the things let's say that the Marie Curie as they say they have strengths weaknesses that they will evaluate one thing that helped me a lot is the survivors right here the survivors got from I think until from 20 to 37 it has a lot of key points and also kind of strange weaknesses from other areas so it's very good to check if you have everything in the key point in your in the position that must be the other thing as George said don't repeat things so you have only 10 patches for the part V1 that is not a lot but I would recommend you to start with section 4 and the section 5 because you have 5 patches for your CV and you have one patch for the organization in the case of global fellowship you have one patch for both hosts but at the same time somehow if you have 5 patches for your CV you could take advantage of it on your section 1, 3 or on your section 3, 4 and the same thing I mean you can take advantage of the other in I say it differently but I mean the section 4 you take advantage in 1, 4 and 2, 1 and the section 5 you take advantage in the 1, 3 and 3, 4 ok so seed them as he told you before and the other thing you need to make the evaluator remember your grant I was not very good in acronyms so these two websites helped me a lot to find an acronym and the other thing is at the beginning they have an abstract so you need to take the make him like or her like your project so somehow try to make the best of your abstract it's an abstract of your proposal it's not about your project so you need to summarize your project of course but also you need to align that you know what the Marie Curie grants want to achieve and for somebody put this project will be complemented in a leading multidisciplinary research group and he it's multidisciplinary they are looking for that so the application brings these and these skills that will facilitate this in the group and the transfer of ideas it's a true transfer way grant so remember that when you write and the proposal to work will expand this and this and this enhancing development of her career as an independent researcher since Marie Curie wants you to achieve an independent career or a maturity so try to emphasize what you are winning with this Marie Curie and the other thing is that also for me almost an image means more than several words so somehow for example here in the career development plan I put a kind of diagram where in the more than gray boxes I put what I have done before and in the light gray boxes I put what I will do later why because I could take advantage of the section 4 from B2 from the CV so don't repeat this dark gray but just refer the CV and then try to explain more what you want to achieve and be specific so say for example I will try to apply later on to this grant this ARC or this Ramonica Hall whatever but put specific things the other thing well they told you already you need to have that for for evaluation at 15 July if you have it's very good at most if you don't have at the beginning in August it's really bad since what you have usually the first time that you write a Marie Curie is a lot of pieces but later on you have to organize them as they told you don't have to repeat things so somehow you need to organize and one way to organize is the UPS has a checking list or otherwise you can also use these pages from the survivor's guide that help me also a lot from 20 to 37 and then just try to check that you have everything all the key points on all your sections and at this moment when you are organizing it try to outline also for the reviewer to quickly find and as they told if there is a thing that you are not considering like for example your project doesn't need general quality but put I have been looking for the general quality but I don't in my project it's not relevant just because they will try to find the general quality so here about the pages is the question that we all do ourselves from the survivor's guide what they say don't put less than 4 pages in the section because it's 50% in the parenthesis you have the pages that they use it's not mandatory mathematical you don't know but the other thing is try to adjust more or less and try to find what is your point one thing I recommend you also is start to write with area 11 when you have finished your draft for sure you will not have 10 you will have 10.5 or something change to area 11 and you will say okay I win something so the other thing is for the CV try to put a summary at the beginning since they have a lot so I am sure they will not read the 5 pages so try to put a summary that summary is what you have done before that you can transfer here okay and the other thing about the section 5 you have here for the host institution in the case of the EF grants for the global fellowships you have to put both institutions however try to put things that complement your part B134 and your part 13 so your supervisor is also evaluated so try to put the publications or the project that your supervisor is inside or that are related with the field that you are proposing and the other thing for sure look at the strengths and weaknesses from other years from people that you have I put some of mine here also and try to identify the core points that they will evaluate because he has put you and it's better than here because here is from the other year while I think in excellence has changed a bit so look from him better than here and then for the excellence part from the excellence part just say that you have to identify your key points for sure for the 1-1 and for the 1-2 one thing that is really important these are training proposals so somehow you need to outline here it's a two-way transfer so try to make a training that also help you to for the section 1-4 but more for the section 2-1 that is what you want to achieve in your career development plan so things that will help you to achieve your goals later for the 1-3 as I say take advantage of the part B2 of the section 5 and for the 1-4 I will say what do you bring new and how this Marie Curie will help you to develop your career development plan even if this you will outline better in 2-1 as an impact here I put some of the strengths the ones that are in orange is more general so when you are at home you will have the material and you can check if you have this and for other as I said I applied before I did not get so for example some of the weaknesses was that there isn't sufficient information regarding how the previously acquired knowledge and skills of the applicant will be transferred to the host if you are doing this project this because you can bring something so don't be modest or you will have this weakness okay the other things other weaknesses it was about I did the state of art maybe I did not achieve that they understand that somehow the bibliography that I was putting was really impacting so if you have put a paper maybe that it's like from 2018 but has 300 citations outline it like look maybe there is not so much papers in this field but look this one that it's really impactful and the other thing it must be incremental so you need to be a bit ambitious while ambitious does not mean that it's not achievable and it's not measurable okay and for the section 2 for the impact what I will tell you is okay again look for the key points of course and for the 2 1 as is your career development plan is what you want to do try to link with the section 1 where you put your training and also here is the impact section so you need to show that this is important for the European Union as Gregorio said so try to put something one thing that you can do is just look to the I-2020 program look the objectives and try to find the objective that is linked to your project the dissemination and communication they have told you quite a lot honestly it's a part maybe of the scientific we write the less but try to write a lot and try to make a lot of research about how writing you need to be specific so you need to put as they told you will do this and this publication in this journal or in this you will go to this conference because you want to achieve that so be specific and for the communication also try to say who how many people you will achieve and how and one thing to say about the communication is something that it's for us maybe difficult to write but honestly when using the grant agreement you say that you will do all of that so put things that you are going to do and also one thing is that you need to look for example a lot of videos it's something that helped me from the European Commission and for example I try to emphasize three phases and three target audiences so it's an example you can do whatever so what I said it was an starting phase that will create expectation and on general promotion so where I will start to talk with kids or in general audience later when I will start to have results I will to talk with academic and industry and finally when I will finish capitalized results so one word that is used a multiplier for example a multiplier can be the European the European Community Communication Center or could be the TV, the journals whatever you feel comfortable with and the other thing is about the impact for example here I got a witness that said analysis of possible opportunities to the researchers than academic once is limited okay as he told you have to say for academic and for industry so even if your goal is doing for academic outline something that you could do for industry in case of you need and the other thing about the applications from before say for one thing that I want to remark is for resummissions I was doing a resummission and they told me the benefits to the candidate might be that if you have a resummental rather than transformational the researchers already has a position within the host group while I was inside of the mobility rule so what I will tell you is if it is your case that you are reapplying or you are how kind of applying with the host where you are now kind of outline what you will learn from the moment that you will start the marigui for somebody researcher from outside coming that will bring something new to the institution something otherwise you can get this weakness and well always detail so always specific otherwise you will say further detail is regarded to be fully convincing and for the implementation for the implementation just say okay they say no colors I agree no colors but if you can do colors that somehow there is softwares that what I did is with the softwares try that these colors can be also seen in black and white it helps to them because you have not so much space here so kind of try to make whatever you find is easier to the reviewer kind of link the world package the milestones the the label labels and the gun chart so later for the 32 also you have some key points here and for the 33 I will recommend to put a table of risk and contingency plan but it's risk of your project but it can be also about administration or financial or whatever okay and also as he said you need that if you don't finish an objective it does not kill all your project so for example I put that this is an ambitious project however it consists of self-contained but interlinked modular objectives and I put the picture there so meaning that if one objective I did not achieve I can continue achieving other objectives and for the 34 complement with section five from B2 where you have a page and of course online key points because it's the last section so keep them in mind that it's a good organization or whatever I put for example that UPF has the International Campus Excellence Seal European Charter for Researches or Human Resources Excellence in Research it's the last paragraph so keep their attention and about this I had all the strengths but again you have three points and you will I for key points sorry and you will be waited for this key points so look at them and from other years I had for example these weaknesses that was like regarding to the milestones so remember milestones are as objective little objectives so kind of try to make it well and also in the grand chart and for the other was the quality management is not sufficiently elaborated in the proposal I did not put here nothing about the administrative and administrative risk or financial risk while they are asking also you to put this there and good luck all the best and hope you get and it's a good deal even if it is a lot of consuming time okay thank you May I say the last point that you mentioned just to add the quality management is an issue that has to be dealt and it gives you a strength if it is clear and you have a good idea you can even introduce kind of external body evaluator in the deliverables you have besides your supervisor that but if you are going really to do it I mean it fits with your project and it's a good proof that you have a quality management in the process of your proposal it gives some additional points can you hear now sorry it was I said that the quality management can give you some strength it's not that only are missing things but if you introduce a good idea it gives you some some bodies or external evaluators or besides your supervisor or professional bodies that are involved to see your research and provide feedback in the stages on the milestones etc that are ideas that can provide you with additional points of strength for the evaluators to write down something that you are good to think about I think they were really useful I have two questions one is if the UK would be global or European do you have any clue or should we try to avoid applying with the UK until things are clear this is a tricky question I have and the second one is Judith you were mentioning European projects where they were partner and I was also a partner place I had done a year stay five years ago so I don't know if you can give us some clues of how should we try to find a place we have no contact with or you will say that we can but we have to be really clear about what's new in this exchange can you give us more some ideas of how to communicate with your host institution at this moment for example that you are in UPF and you will reapply with them and you already have a position here so try to say you will increment your knowledge but about your collaborations for example is a good point that you put that you have these collaborations and you can bring new collaborations from them to the new host for example this is a point because you have this the mobility and they are winning some network from you you are transferring network also you see but if you already have this contact I think you need to you need to you need to you need to have this contact I think you need some additionality something new that you will bring in terms of knowledge for your project or for the training you can always to have your contacts of course is always good but try to put something that they will bring more and also even if they don't bring maybe things they are bringing to the new host where you are going you are transferring them your network so it's a good point also so don't avoid to put that about the UK the deadline for Brexit is 31st October and the arrangement that they have is that if you submit a project for an institution before the 31st October or before Brexit eventually happens the British Research Council or whatever has committed to fund the project if it's selected however if you are planning on doing a second man this will be a risk of your project because if the UK is not anymore in the EU you will not be able to go to the UK on a second man so then this would be a management and a research risk for your project Thank you very much for the presentation I have three questions so the first one is in talking about the impact should we prioritise the impact within the EU or you were talking about uploading a YouTube video for example is that better because it's bigger or should we prioritise within the EU and then my second question was I know that we include research money should we be giving a budget of how we would plan to spend that research money and my third one was is it an advantage or not to already have some pre-results so you were talking that this should be state of the art but if it's something that you've already been working on a little bit and you have some pre-results is that an advantage or not Thanks I can answer the first and the third the second it's up to you concerning the impact it has various sub-criteria it's not as you saw in the presentations there is the European excellence first which means that of course if you prove that you improve the European excellence worldwide and it has impact worldwide as a plus but certainly it has to have an impact concrete in something happening in Europe that means that you're going to create something in Europe that can have a worldwide output that's the plus but it will start by improving the European research the European excellence in that field or the growth or the innovation or the economy or the society or the European citizens and that's why as Joseph told before they ask if you move abroad they ask you to come back in order to make Europe to gain from what the European taxpayers pay not the Americans so the impact should be societally economically and in research improvement speaking in Europe through Europe to have a worldwide impact a worldwide excellence it is very important to also in the dissemination in the communication if the world entire for example make a cultural project where is my field and you produce something that can have a worldwide impact in Europe it is a plus of course and the last question about having pre-results if you already have some pre-results that depends on what you mean by pre-results if you depends on your objective if your objective is a state of the art and an excellent idea you have to show how you are going from what the actual state of the art is in innovation if you can document by that that you have advanced already in the state of art somehow outside of the Marie Curie fellowship and you have something that proves it it is a plus of course that you will put it in your CV probably and you will put it in the first section where you document your excellence about the budget it is not mandatory to include a budget and actually something percent of successful proposals they do not include any however in the section 3 there is the financial and risk management and administrative management so you need to be aware that you have to spend €19,000 to spend over two years so if you need to buy a very expensive machine or something like this maybe you will not be able to perform this project whereas it is not necessary to detail everything you should at least state that you know that with the funds that they are giving you you can pay for everything that you will need for your previous results I will say if you can kind of show that this will interdisciplinary help it is a plus because interdisciplinary is a plus in my degree so if you can say that somehow it is a plus well thank you very much for your presentations it is super useful to hear so many tips I was wondering if there is like the projects regarding the fields if there is like I don't know statistics on how many projects from humanities for example get funded and is there? Yeah you mean like over like the whole Yes like well I am from cinema so many times it is like super difficult to compete from someone of medicine because it is like very too different but in some grants you get like there is like a statistic and you get an idea if there is is likely to fund the projects on the arts or if maybe it is not Yeah I mean well there are two things here first of all is that you compete so I mean you submit your proposal in a big pool however this big pool is divided into several panels so even though they actually compete with somebody from life sciences you will be evaluated by people from your field or who are have some knowledge about your field and if I am not mistaken what they do is they decide so they see how much the percentage of applications that are submitted to each field to each panel and then they allocate so if there is a 10% of proposals in humanities the 10% of the total applications that will be funded will be from humanities Exactly they put some budget depending on the applications that will be submitted Okay and the second question is regarding the host institution if there is like a interesting possibility that has like the interdisciplinary context that we are looking for but it's not like a super world ranked is it better to choose institution that has a better ranking but not the context like the ideal context we are looking for? The idea of the Marie Curie is that the institution you choose fits in the purposes of your project that's the basic thing so of course a good institution is a plus but the big plus is that what you are going to do can be done only there or mainly there if it is a smaller or more let's say it will not be considered as far as it is not a dump it's not an institution that somehow I've seen this kind of proposals institutions that who are almost strangely inexistent but it's not the case I mean but you have to prove why this institution is the one that is good for your research for you. Thank you very much for the presentations I have three specific questions how is the competition organized is it by research state is this compete with PhDs and zero to three years between them or is the whole pool competing to each other according to the panel then the second question is what is the weight of the individual CV and the third one in the case of application from PhDs for instance in the last year in the work plan that we plan to finish the PhD for instance at a specific date and then we will continue with this funding for two more years how is it that specification in that case thank you look as we told before actually it doesn't matter so much what level typically you have in the academic research than your real skills so the skills and the competencies that you present to fit with the research that you are going to undertake you cannot have even any PhD or never have it I mean in the concept of the commission what's important in the call is that the skills you have, the publications the professional experience the work that you have done in academia your current situation of knowledge can support reliably the research that you propose this is the match between the researcher and as it is a training program that your CV at the end of the application at the end of the project it will be different you will get some skills that you cannot put in now so for example transdisciplinary and having new skills is also you are coming from the humanities learning you are going to an informatics school or you have courses of learning how metadata are used because this is necessary for your research so this is a skill to be acquired within the project although you don't have it in the first year in order to apply your research to apply it in your research in the second year to give you an example of how it works if somebody says I'm going to use metadata tools and it looks at your CV and you do not prove that you have any knowledge of what metadata is you will be rejected they will not look at your CV as if you have a PhD or don't but if you cover what you need and if what is missing is in your proposal with a reliable way I don't know if it is clear enough just in terms of the evaluation that you said where there is different stages or something all projects in one same panel are evaluated likewise but as George was saying if you are a PhD student or if your CV is in one level you are competing with somebody who has a better or more complete CV but they are taking into account what he was saying so there is no difference between it can be one year that everybody is in a PhD student or it can be the next year everybody is 25 years in their postdoc of 25 years you need to show that you will transfer what they don't have in the host somehow so maybe you don't have a big CV but you have some point that it's necessary for this project and it's what you need to show and focusing that on your CV in that two things to prove that it is sufficient to start the project you will acquire the skills during the project that are missing and at the end of the day your CV will be different that's the whole idea you will have new skills new competencies the two-way transfer so I have to question one is regarding the second man but maybe I will start with the first regarding resubmission so if you have been abroad in a non-European country for five years and then you come back the first 12 months you can choose to apply to the standard European or the reintegration right yes depends on how you've just arrived to no so last year I was in that situation I applied to the standard European I get the seal of excellence top 15% but they didn't get the funding so this year I will need to apply to the reintegration because it's already more than 12 months that I have been at UPF so this is a resubmission but do I need to state that it's a resubmission is it any good to put do you really need to re-refer the whole application to make it more appealing actually it's not a resubmission because a resubmission is if you're applying the same project with the same supervisor and with the same category ok so if you were in European and now you're going to reintegration first of all you can prepare a three-year project which will make it already different and so it's not a resubmission so should I state that I got a grant before with the seal of excellence that didn't get funding maybe you can put it in your CV ok this very same question was asked last week in the info day that the national contact point did in Catalonia and they didn't have an answer for that they said maybe you can put it in your CV they always say not to put anything from previous evaluations in your proposal so not to say this was considered a strength previously or I this was a weakness and I have now I have done this to make it better just if you want to put this in the CV so I will use the valuation but not a state that I have used the valuation to make it better exactly, no because the valuators are not the same persons you're not going to be evaluated by the same persons that have evaluated you last year it will be somebody else most probably it's by luck and then regarding the second man I was very surprised that you don't need a letter of approval from the supervisor of the second man so does it help at all it's very striking if I'm in politics I can say that my second man will be in the White House and I don't need to state that I will be approved so well in the White House you wouldn't be able because it's in the US but you can say but they trust that you're not lying and then at the end of the project you will be asked for a report so if you've promised a second man or any activity and then you haven't done it whatever the reason it is you have to explain why and if it's considered a super important task and you haven't done it there's a bad report but in the grant agreement it will be there, right? what your proposal the way you submit it if it's approved it goes as it is in the grant agreement the proposals are also monitored I mean that's why they ask for you have to submit your deliverables you have to submit what it is writing and there are monitors who are looking at them and if you promise something that you don't do it of course you are going to have problems it means they can stop even the commission can stop the funding at the middle if they realize that in the first year you have not done or submitted what you should submit or the second year they can just put a red card and stop it or even ask back the funding at the end of the day so you cannot promise things that of course you can have small that's why the risk management exists you can have small objectives or failures or but not important things if you say I'm going to do this secondment in this museum because this will give me these skills and you don't do it you have to explain why and what will you substitute it with if you don't have it in the risk management whether Trump has not accepted me in the White House for example which is not useful it's very frequent how to change thank you too for your presentations they were very useful just following one of my questions follow us on the secondment if you have a global fellowship can you have a secondment like if you're in Australia can you have a secondment in another university in Australia no you can do a secondment while you're in Australia come to Europe and spend three months in Paris but then but it's still in the counting for the time that you're in Australia so if you want to go to another university for example in Australia it doesn't make sense to state that but you have to pay from your own money I guess I mean the travel travel accommodation maybe you can say that you will do a short research state like you will go there to do I don't know fieldwork or to go to the library because they have a manuscript about the aborigines who nobody else has or something like that but that should be something which is not a core task of your project because you know that somebody else is very good at the topic as well and may help you in one particular point that if you don't at the end of the day you cannot go there it doesn't put a problem in your project and also talking about this imagine that you want to apply for a host institution but in the research group is very good but there's not a clear supervisor or key figure that has a strong profile so is it better to pick another institution that has no important is the figure of the supervisors versus the research centre because for example the one I'm thinking of has a strong research centre but there's no clear figure like clear supervisor that has a strong profile I mean can you make up for the research centre being very strong if the supervisor is not that strong so that's a question and also if you're going for the global the return institution is it possible to say that there's no institution that really matches what you're doing here and therefore you're bringing in something different you're adding to what already was there or do I have to go to Finland because in Finland there's that specific one I mean can you say something I want to come back to Spain or to Barcelona and I want to add something towards the research group that doesn't have it right now does that make sense or it will be much better with that but do you follow my question so when I return is it better to go to the best research centre than does that or can you justify going to another research centre who is not currently doing that what you're doing but you can add your expertise there are two questions I'm about the supervisor it is rather important to have a good supervisor but it's better to have a supervising process that includes the know-how that you will help you and assist you to achieve your objectives that means to prove that there is the know-how in the institution there's a process to transfer it to you if you can prove that of course it's not only the CV of the supervisor you can have that, two supervisors you can have a multidisciplinary especially supervision team in case you are doing something cultural informatics you can have two persons that are a team that is supervising your research so you can resolve that if really there is the know-how you need in the institution this is what you have to prove that the know-how is there to transfer it to you and the know-how of course are persons it's not in there it's somebody who is going to transfer it to you somehow and the second one it was when you return back your return institution if the return institution doesn't have the expertise they're not experts in what you're bringing them so does it make sense to say return back to the best institution does this but I'm bringing a new skill to this institution or should you be yes absolutely yes you are bringing a new skill in this institution yes of course it's what they are looking for they are looking for mobility so it's good that you bring something new it's a two way it's a two way so I will go to the next that you will put the institution and the return institution that this is when I come back yeah so I mean related to this regarding the mandatory year that we will do in Europe how specific do we have to be do I need to say that I want to come back to this institute no when you submit the application you say already say for instance I will be you submit the application with UPF and you say I will go to Australia with the senior university but you submit the application already with the institution where you will return and actually while you are in the outgoing phase your employment contract will be with UPF so you will deal with them but you will be paid by UPF one question I'm not sure if I read in the application if we need support to process lots of data is it possible to do like a small contract for I don't know a master student or so to provide assistance with that or it's supposed to be like a one man with all projects you you can have technical support not research support you're not a company but you can spend part of your money to proceed your data or to whatever you need for your research that's not to necessarily to contract a person you can contract an institution you can pay an invoice that is necessary for proceeding the data or whatever because you cannot pay a person in order to pay a person you have to be a company practically speaking you must somehow pay an institution or buy some services that are necessary for your work my question is now that's from what I just heard is it a good idea to say that the budget for research could be used to enhance mobility by for instance bringing students from abroad to Spain so that that will help to the project and that will also help to the mobility and internationalization as well do you think that's a good idea to say that's the way of making use of that budget you said the fellow from Marie Curie gets his own salary money and then you get 600 euros per month for research so my question is is it a good idea to say that that money will be used to bring students from let's say Mexico down here so that will help to the research project and that will also contribute to enhance mobility and internationalization internationalization and so on you can have technical assistance but you cannot subcontract research that's why it is individual it's your research so there are other kind of projects like ITNs that are among institutions that are doing exactly this they are paying the institutions the university the university of Vienna and the university they have a network and they contract researchers and they are moving them around in a bigger project but as a person that's why they are called individual you cannot subcontract research you can only buy and pay technical services of any kind to a university, to a company to do printing for communication for somebody to make you a web page this kind of stuff Thank you for the helpful presentation I would like to ask if you were already a Marie Curie before if you were in a network for the PhD it's something positive does it change? I mean do we have to highlight this? Yeah because this is a competitive if you got another Marie Curie it means that you got a competitive job there were other people applying to that and you were the one that got it so it means that you were standing in that thing and it also maybe also a good point in 1.4 where you say I have already been involved in a Marie Curie so I know more or less how it works and this is a plus because I know how to work in a project in a team etc but it doesn't make a big difference No it's not a plus I would like to ask if the help that we can get from UPF it's only if we apply for doing this to UPF or if we now are at UPF and we want to go there like apply for Marie Curie somewhere else do we have the app anyway or not? I can only support those that are willing to come to UPF because wherever you are going, willing to go they will have us and they will help you as we do Then like in research in general it's always very important to publish many paper and all these things but in if you apply to this Marie Curie proposal you have to take care of a lot of other things so probably in the end you will have less I mean unavoidably less time for research than if you were just doing the search so I mean if you give a lot of emphasis to outreach activity for example this dissemination I don't know my question is for example also do you need in my opinion like having an amazing project with great results disseminate those results not being very strong in all these aspects it's a bit tricky it's difficult to happen all of these things together what about if you maybe focus on disseminating something more like already established and so and not necessarily like having you as I will find these amazing new results and then I will disseminate these results to European like to everybody I don't know you need the balance of both you have to balance it depending also on the kind of your project a lot I mean it's a very different thing if you're doing medicine for example and biology and something very specific a different thing when you're doing history or archaeology you have to balance to prove that you're doing the best you can following your project potential there are projects that have higher potential and projects that have less potential it's natural I mean but to choose correctly the target groups and also the publications that are important in this precise field it depends it's really depending on the project how you make the balance but it's not negative a priori the fact of giving more stress to dissemination and then being less I don't know like you risk then to have maybe less impactful publication I'm asking if this is very risky or if it's a possibility to I cannot tell you in general it means it has to be integrated in the more or less I don't understand what you mean I mean you can also disseminate when it's published if it is not a question I mean your question is if you do a lot of dissemination maybe you will not publish because something but for example let's suppose you think now it's very important climate science but maybe you're not a really expert in climate science so maybe it's not so the innovative part is not so much the specific results you will have that maybe you also have a research project but maybe in climate science it's very important to be more efficient in disseminating let's suppose so you will have like you will put particular effort in dissemination of results unless on having innovative results itself in research like for example no you have to put all effort possible to disseminate in the maximum possible audiences scientific and wide audience and social media of any kind of results but that of course the potential depends of the project you have if you have a project of robotics or you know mass media and televisions and the evaluator will expect to see that because it's something that's very appealing if you saw something I don't know just very limited he's expecting to see dissemination in the respective audiences if you're working in a village and development of an area for example at least to see that you're going to disseminate in the chambers of commerce you're going to contact the professionals you're going to organize some kind of public events and in each case you are going to publish some articles some papers for the academic dissemination in the relevant conferences or reviewed journals or whatever it fits in your project but dissemination is very important anyway it is not comparative I mean they're not going to say that a project that is studying the evaluator will not see that the project that is studying the manuscripts of the 14th century in Austria they're not expecting to see that in the broadcasted in Europe but they're expecting to see something that fits with the potential of this project Thank you very much that was very useful so I have more technical questions regarding the publications so if you have several manuscripts in preparation or they are submitted but they are not uploaded to the archive for example is there a point to put this in a section in your CV like manuscripts in preparation or submitted or something or it's like they are nowhere they don't exist yet or something like that I put for example in the CV I put that I was preparing a manuscript that was under a pattern and then I put also it was already submitted in revision not something that you have not done yet so something that has a reason why you don't because there is an IP team that is looking or you need to wait a bit or whatever or it is in revision already in this journal and then you put in this journal but if it's like in preparation almost about to submit that's right I don't think so that it doesn't prove anything exactly so if it is submitted somehow but if you say I'm preparing 10 ideas and you don't have anything this is part of your proposal somehow you can say in the proposal I'm doing that we have a colleague who submitted a Marie Curie and he was one of these big weaknesses they identified was that he was a global fellowship and the return organization he they told him the weakness was that he this organization is a research center that doesn't have proper teaching positions like research positions it's just a research center so that the the research center could not support him in his career path he said he couldn't apply for a Ramon Kajal or an ERC but obviously that wasn't enough and that was found like a strong weakness but then we know that two other colleagues did get Marie Curie in that same institution so what is this I mean is that really depend on who in revises your Marie Curie obviously that's a lack really also some lack so that's the thing but then the advice is should we apply with this research center or is that risky because we're going to get this message you know principality is not risky that depends also how the evaluators have seen the current I'm not going to defend their position because I don't know the project but they could have seen that this research center specifically for this proposal was something that was for his career development the precise project was not adequate not generally that the research center could not support they were quite specific apparently they were quite specific about the problem was that he couldn't that he could not be supported to find the career development path because they couldn't you know they couldn't get a position as a researcher a position as a professor it doesn't have this career development path it's normal if they don't find that they see that in another application in the same research center that it fits it has a perspective there it is relative on the proposal itself I mean if you are going to a research center that is specialized in the ancient history and there are no positions for you there or that there are no relevant of what the research and skills you are doing in the future the same thing can apply to an application that has positions in a different way from one that there are perspectives it has not to do generally with organization but with the project and the organization but in a way it is structured currently in Spain with a crisis universities are having no positions almost so it is true that when we plan the career we know it's kind of lottery if you will have the opportunity to apply to a permanent position or not so actually in this case in this particular case it is true and not actually hire researchers researchers have to be hired by departments or have to apply for further projects the career perspective is not necessarily a position in the university you can say that with these skills I can work for a museum for research for pharmaceutical company for in the research in the private sector I am going to work for somehow prove that you thought about your perspective not necessarily is a position in the university of course not or the research center or whatever it can be whatever in the private sector in the public sector in the university in a company these skills are going to help you to achieve these objectives as more precise you are more chances to have to be persuasive I have just a very quick question about what can be funded as research can you fund a survey, would that count as a technical service yes, thank you very much for writing till the end thank you