Monday, 29 January 2018

my only post today

Europa / Participant Portal notification Dear Coordinator, We regret to inform you that your above proposal has been rejected. The Rejection Letter is available on the proposal page at the Participant Portal. Log on to the Participant Portal > My Area > My Proposal(s -------------------- Not wasting any more time on this. In fact I stopped following MSCA on twitter last week. Hopefully my close to home option will work out. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 53.80% (Threshold: 70/100.00) Form information SCORING Scores must be in the range 0-5. Interpretation of the score: 0– The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information. 1– Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 2– Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses. 3– Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present. 4– Very good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present. 5– Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion.Any shortcomings are minor. * - mandatory fields Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 3.00 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 50.00%) • Quality and credibility of the research/innovation action (level of novelty, appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary and gender aspects) • Quality and appropriateness of the training and of the two way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host • Quality of the supervision and of the integration in the team/institution • Capacity of the researcher to reach or re-enforce a position of professional maturity/independence Strengths: - The proposal offers a highly innovative approach based on bridging biomedicine, pharmacology and cultural anthropology to explore traditional treatments of infertility from an interdisciplinary approach. - The approach is comprehensive, based on a method-mix combining historical sources with a survey of modern self-treatments and a participatory workshop with midwives. The proposal benefits from a multidimensional approach in collecting primary sources for analysis. 785421/CAM-ART-09/01/2018-16:45:35 1 / 3 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)137038 - 09/01/2018 - The complementary expertise of the applicant and the supervisor and host institution team is a strong advantage. - The supervisor and the host team are of high standing in the field, very experienced and very well positioned to host the proposed project. The hosts of the two secondments are excellently qualified in the respective fields to add significant value to the research to be undertaken. - There is good potential for international networking. - The researcher has excellent qualifications, rich experience and an impressive publication record with a high impact (inferred from the number of citations), which is an indicator of professional maturity. Weaknesses: - The research questions are not sufficiently elaborated upon. The state of art is one-sidedly presented and does not provide adequate justification of the project’s ambitions. - While gender is an important parameter of the action, its significance is explored only in terms of female fertility. - Some of the research tools (literature review, participatory workshop) are of obvious relevance, while others (survey, interviews) are not defended in the proposal and their value remains dubious. For instance, interviews are repeatedly mentioned but the project does not provide appropriate details on who would be interviewed and how the interviews would contribute to the research. - The proposal does not provide sufficient information about knowledge transfer from the researcher to the host institution. - The list of medical training courses is too long and unfocused, seriously undermining the credibility of the training component. The inclusion of transferable skills courses is also not realistically justified. - While the supervisor's experience and achievements are described in abundant detail, the proposal offers only limited information on specific arrangements and measures to integrate the applicant into the host team. - There is no clear reference to measurable skills or experience that will contribute to the professional development of the researcher. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 2.90 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 30.00%) • Enhancing the potential and future career prospects of the researcher • Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the action results • Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the action activities to different target audiences Strengths: - The dissemination plan is included in the Gantt chart. The choice of high-profile scientific forums and journals as dissemination outlets is positive. - The proposal presents a diverse communication plan for outreach beyond the academia. The researcher provides a viable strategy of public engagement to introduce the research results to non-experts. Weaknesses: - The proposal lacks a precise reference to planned academic and non-academic activities which are expected to enhance the researcher’s skills. It is not clear which new techniques and methodologies the researcher will acquire during this project. - The potential and future career prospects of the researcher are described generally, without a detailed analysis of the expected impact. - With a view to the broad interdisciplinary approach of the project, it is a shortcoming that the proposal does not sufficiently specify how the dissemination outputs would be tailored to different types of specialised audiences. Criterion 3 - implementation Score: 1.60 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 20.00%) • Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan • Appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources • Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures, including risk management • Appropriateness of the institutional environment (infrastructure) Strengths: - The secondments are well planned from the point of view of the objectives and the implementation. - The amount of time in person-months needed for some of the planned activities is carefully estimated and seems appropriate. Weaknesses: - The proposal does not provide a clear list of deliverables and a smooth plan of implementation in research, training and outcomes. The logic of the work plan is unclear, with most of the research activities grouped together into an untitled work package. - The Gantt chart is incongruous with the work plan and incomplete. A number of activities and deliverables mentioned in the text are missing from the Gantt chart. - The timing of the activities is unbalanced, with considerable overlapping within certain months. - Management structures and procedures, including risk management, are inadequately addressed within the page limit. - Institutional environment/infrastructure is not addressed within the page limit of the proposal. Scope of the proposal Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Operational Capacity Status: Operational Capacity: Yes If No, please list the concerned partner(s), the reasons for the rejection, and the requested amount. Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)