So, you want to get money from the European Commission (EU) by applying for one of the Marie Curie schemes, but you need expert advice. I have been working as an expert, rapporteur, and vice chair evaluating these schemes for over 15 years, so I should be able to help you. You can also use the comments section below to get help from your peers.
All three schemes (IEF, IOF, IIF) have similar criteria, which are given at the end of this article along with my explanations as to what you have to write in order to meet these criteria. I also explain some of the important, mostly misunderstood, sub-criteria to help you understand exactly what the Commission wants. In addition, I have included a table for scores at the end of the text, submitted by unverified users so people will have an idea on approximate scores.
But first, what's different about the three schemes is their objectives. If you want to write a successful proposal, you have to write it according to these objectives, and modify it to fit these objectives exactly.
IEF: The objectives of the IEF scheme aim for these Fellowships to allow the most promising researchers from EU and Associated Countries to undertake training through research in the European organizations most appropriate to their individual needs. The researchers may freely choose the topic in collaboration with the host, with a view to completing or diversifying his/her expertise. The IEF action is aimed at experienced researchers and hopes to respond to their particular needs. Its intention is to help researchers add different/complementary scientific competencies in the process of reaching and/or reinforcing a position of professional maturity and independence (e.g. advanced training in multi-disciplinary fields, advanced training related to an interdisciplinary transfer, intersectoral experiences at senior level), or to permit them to resume their career.
This means that if the researcher was pregnant, or had to leave science for a career in industry, but wants to come back to science, that's a priority researcher according to the objectives. The action permits the researchers to undertake transnational mobility in the European organisations most appropriate to their individual needs, directed towards competence diversification, without providing merely a subsequent step to continue their work in the same research field. In other words, the proposed project should be something that diversifies the career of the researcher.
IOF: The IOF scheme Fellowships are awarded to researchers from EU and Associated Countries to work in established third country research centers, thereby widening their international experience in research. This scheme requires the submission of a coherent individual training program, involving a first phase abroad, followed by a mandatory second phase in Europe. This action, open towards the rest of the world, aims to respond to the need for reinforcing the international dimension of the careers of European researchers by giving them the opportunity to be trained and acquire new knowledge in a world level third country research organization, and then to apply the experience gained in an organization in a Member State or Associated States.
IIF: And finally, the IIF scheme Fellowships aim to attract top-class researchers from third countries to work and undertake research training in Europe, with the view to developing mutually-beneficial research co-operation between Europe and third countries. In the case of emerging and transition economies and developing countries, the scheme may include provisions to assist fellows to return to their country of origin. This action reinforces the scientific excellence of the Member States and the Associated States thanks to the application of the knowledge thus transferred during this period of mobility. Additionally, this will also constitute a springboard for the future development of relations between the Member States or Associated States and the third countries.
All of the schemes have to be relevant to one or more of the specific objectives of the action. Potential for acquiring competencies during the fellowship to improve the prospects of reaching and/or reinforcing a position of professional maturity, diversity and independence, in particular through exposure to complementary skills training is important. The proposal should emphasize contribution to career development or re-establishment where relevant.
For international fellowships, potential for creating long term collaborations and mutually beneficial co-operation between Europe and the third country should be emphasized.
For incoming fellowships, contribution to the socio-economic development of the Developing Countries or emerging and transition economies by transfer of knowledge and human capacity building (where appropriate) should be written in detail. The extent to which the research contributes to the objectives of the European Research Area or other European policy objectives are very important as this section makes up a high percentage of the total score.
Below are the criteria I mentioned at the top of the article.
1. Scientific Quality of the Project 25% (Threshold 3)
In this criterion, it is important to mention interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal and emphasize how it is multidisciplinary with convincing arguments. The proposer should explain why the proposed research is timely, in other words, why it must be done now. This section needs to explain how the host has sufficient scientific expertise in this specific field and should prove that the host is very high quality. This can be done by mentioning publications, patents etc. Publications in journals like Science and Nature are major boosts. This section has a high percentage of the weighted score, so it is important to spend a good amount of time and attention on it.
2. Quality of Research Training 15% (Threshold 3)
This section should convince the expert reviewer that the fellow knows what he is going to learn, and is aware of the learning objectives. Complementary skills must be mentioned here. These are things like grant writing, paper writing, presentation skills, etc. You have to show that the host scientists have plenty of experience in training graduate students, including post docs. Percentage of this section is low, but a score lower than the threshold will fail your proposal, so be sure to address all the sub-criteria here carefully.
3. Quality of the Researcher 25% (Threshold 4)
The fellow must convince the experts that he/she has sufficient experience in the subject. This can be accomplished by mentioning his/her accomplishments up to this point in his/her career. This is followed by the most important sub-criterion in this section: research results including publications, teaching, and patents. I am not going to sugarcoat it, it is a major boost to your proposal if you have a high number of publications in high quality journals. This depends on your level of experience, so if you have been in science for 10 years, then you must have more publications compared to someone who has been in science for two years. This is quite important and may increase or decrease your points.
You have to write something specific about yourself that indicates that you have independent thinking and leadership qualities. This can be accomplished by telling a story on how you did something by yourself, or how you lead students or some other group. In short, anything that will convince the experts that you have independent thinking and leadership qualities will do.
Additionally, your profile needs to match the project, but this does not mean that you should do the exact same thing as your masters or Ph.D. You need to diversify your subject, yet it should fit your profile. If the project is a subsequent step in your career, that's bad.
The project should provide you with the potential to reach a position of professional maturity. In other words, if you are one step away from professional maturity and this project will provide you with that ability, that's great. This could be by providing you with something that will complement your knowledge so that you will gain independence, for example. You also have to write something regarding your potential to acquire new knowledge, to illustrate that you will learn and gain new knowledge by completing this project.
4. Implementation 15%
This section has to illustrate the host's infrastructure and international collaborations. You have to write how you can accomplish the proposed research using the host's facilities and if they are enough. It is usually a bad idea to write that you will do only part of the research with the host and will have to go somewhere else to perform some other part of the research.
Also consider these questions in this section:
- What will the host do to make you feel at home?
- Will you have visa or other legal problems or will they take care of that?
- What are other practical arrangements?
Important Note: You must include a GANTT Chart here. This is a very important step that a lot of people leave out in their work plan.
5. Impact 20%
This section used to have the highest percentage in earlier years, and it is still high with 20 percent. You must also include complementary skills here in addition to the training section. You have to illustrate your potential for reaching a position of professional maturity, diversity, and independence. How will you be trained in complementary skills, and how will it help you in professional maturity and independence?
Writing about contribution to career development is required and it is very important, as I mentioned at the top of the article. If you left science and want to come back, the European Commission wants you back! This aspect should increase your chances significantly. If this project will make a significant contribution to your career, that's great also.
Contribution to European excellence and European competitiveness must be convincingly illustrated and must be specific to your project. In other words, don't fill it out with generic sentences.
2010 Scores As Submitted By Unverified Users
Peura on September 11, 2019:
Is this page still working?
Luis R on February 08, 2019:
Yes, I have the same indication, and nothing have changed in the Marie Curie portal, then I think that the results has not been published yet.
luca74 on February 08, 2019:
if you go in your EC portal, proposal, follow-up there is a timeline that indicates the status of your proposal (e.g. submitted, informed, etc.). In my timeline "Informed" there is written: "12 Feb 2019 (149/153 days)."
From this I assumed that the results will be published on Feb 12th. But this is just a supposition...
Do you guys have the same indication?
luca74 on February 08, 2019:
I am "Luca" (I have just signed in with the nick name Luca74). I am in the Social Science panel
gh on February 08, 2019:
Did not get anything either. Which panel are you in faufou ?
Luca on February 08, 2019:
great! happy for you! congrats!
I have not received anything until now (11.18am CET). Is it normal? I mean, with almost 10.000 submission it might while for the EC to deliver all the results.
Please, anybody is in my same situation, waiting? Thanks and good luck!
MSC2018 on February 08, 2019:
Yeah right Faufou... There's nothing happening in the grant portal and haven't heard of anyone else getting any information.
Faufou on February 07, 2019:
Got it! 98.4!
Luca on February 07, 2019:
Hi all! It looks like that Friday 8th is THE day... Do you have any news please? good luck everybody :-)
Rose on February 05, 2019:
Thanks dijas. It is so exhausting. Can't wait anymore ....
Does anyone know the precise date of results release?
dijas on February 04, 2019:
no news yet.. the twitter handle of MSCA says that results will be announced this week
Rose on February 04, 2019:
Still no news?
Luca on February 04, 2019:
I do confirm this week (according to colleagues have close contact with Brussel)
doriel on January 31, 2019:
not yet it seems to me but it would be expected this week actually
Anna on January 31, 2019:
Hey there, has anyone received their results?
Manika on August 22, 2018:
Are you eligible to resubmit?
there is this clause, "The researcher cannot have resided or carried out his/her main activity (work, studies, etc.) in the country of the beneficiary for more than 12 months in the three years immediately before the call deadline.”
Can any body guide if we can re apply in IF-LIF?
Thanking you in advance.
Manika on August 22, 2018:
Any IF LIF reserve from 2017 that was invited to initiate a grant agreement? What was your position in the reserve list?
John on August 04, 2018:
Hi, I will resubmit a proposal with the same supervisor and host organisation but the research objective (scientific contents in Excellence part-section-1) have been completely changed from last year's submission.
Should I declare it as resubmission?
There is some information a bit confusing; 1) in Form A, it suggests that it should be declared as a resubmission if the research objective is the same or very similar. 2) the Guide for Applicants (guideline for MSCA-IF 2018 pdf file) says that same supervisor, same fellow + same host University= resubmission.
Therefore, I am confused, please suggest me what should I mention.
The scientific contents have been completely changed but with same fellow+ same supervisor and with the same host University.
Many thanks for your kind suggestion.
MC IF-ENG@UK on May 11, 2018:
@ IF ENG to UK
Hi, I'm starting a MC IF in UK and the HR office says that family and mobility allowances are taxed, but in your case they were not
Can you tell something more, please?
Physicist on April 11, 2018:
I'm currently in my PhD and thinking of applying to the Marie Curie Fellowship for the 2018 round. I'm likely graduating with my PhD around March 2019, but my Master was not 4 years ago (and will not by the end of the deadline and also not by the graduation). Does this mean that I can only apply next year?
Thanks for all of your help!
EF-ENG@UK on March 06, 2018:
I think it will be just evaluated as a new submission rather a resubmission...that means that the evaluators will not have access to the former evaluation report.
I have to say that usually it is useful to resubmit because the evaluators will focus on the critics (that you have surely addressed) rather than all details, but I also think that this cannot be your "last try"..
Hansit on February 28, 2018:
Hello. I am starting to think about my future resubmission. I got 88,6 and apparently the cut-off in the GF SOC panel was 92,5 or something like that, so I guess it is worthy another and last try. Although my university in the EU was evaluated as of high quality in the report, I was wondering, for personal/professional reasons, to move my project to another (high-quality) beneficiary in the EU. Obviously this means that my project would result as a new submission and not a resubmission. Do you think this can negatively affect the chance to get it?
Louis on February 05, 2018:
I find your case surprising. It amazes me that there were no resignations in ENV. Were you in the GF or the ST panel? Most ST panels have 3-10 resignations, as opposed to 1-3 for GF. But most resignations typically take place in Feb-March and they send new offers in May. Last year more funding became available in the fall but this is something rather exceptional.
I also heard that new offers are not entirely panel-independent. They wait until May, see how many people have resigned from all panels and then discuss how much money goes to each panel. I don't understand very well this politics but you may have been in disadvantage because of this. In any case, happy to read that everything went well at the end - congratulations!
Godot on February 05, 2018:
My score was the same as the cut off and I was told I ranked first. I got called up in September.
No idea why it takes so long, but if you scroll down this thread you will see some other people got called up after me also. It may be that people who are offered lecturing positions after being offered a Marie Curie wait until everything is formalized and they start before officially withdrawing.
IF ST LIF 2017 on February 02, 2018:
Any IF LIF reserve from 2016 that was invited to initiate a grant agreement? What was your position in the reserve list?
Louis on January 31, 2018:
Why is that you have to wait 9 months? It is typically in May (when the grant signing period finishes) when they contact those in the reserve list. Those contacted after May are because some extra funding becomes available - but the person ranked 1st on the reserve list is called in May. (I've never heard of a panel that had 0 resignations)
Academics_Anonymous on January 31, 2018:
I am in the reserve list of this year's IF-ENV panel. My NCP could not provide a clear-cut number for the people in the waiting list of ENV panel. Instead, she gave my ranking with respect to all EF-ST proposals that are in the waiting list.
May I ask you your score and your rank on the reserve list? I guess you are called around last June, right?
Godot on January 31, 2018:
CharlesRU, you need to contact your NCP to find out where your rank on the reserve list and what do they think are the chances of you being funded. Be warned even if highly ranked it can take a long time to be called. Eg people who are ranked first, ie only need one person to withdraw have not been called up until 9 months later.
CharlesRU on January 29, 2018:
Just got into reserve list for MC, anyone in the same situation? What can we do now? Any previous experience of positive news after a reserve list situation?
EF-ENG@UK on January 29, 2018:
I've got a MC-EF, panel ENG, in UK (score 99, second try).
I know that some people here have experience, can I kindly ask you some tips from your experience about life, move with family, etc. ... ?
Dr_P.E on January 28, 2018:
I'm still very expectant o. February, please come on time o. Smiles.
LazyAnna on January 16, 2018:
About UK: it doesn't matter, the evaluators were specifically told not to take this into account, and NOT to discriminate against applications to UK institutions.
About the groups having grantees in the previous years: It does not matter, it's probably more of a benefit even. I am applying to the same group where my colleague from my home university went last year with MC. I see no problem there.
Ukulele on January 14, 2018:
Did anyone get official communication from the EC Grant Management regarding ethical issues asking for additional info?
Prabu Periyathambi on January 06, 2018:
I am Biochemist. But I applied in PHY and also I am thinking about the result. Last time, I applied Irish. I got 75 out of 100 (Cut off score is 82) and failed to secure the scholarship.
Frankie on January 01, 2018:
Flynix: that's great I'll join now :)
GF-SOC on January 01, 2018:
Good job on the forum! That's way better!
GF SOC 2017 on January 01, 2018:
The application asks for evidence that the collaboration enabled by the grant is novel and also for evidence that the university has managed similar grants before. It depends on how well you justify it to the reviewers I suppose.
seeker84 on December 30, 2017:
One of my friend raised a question that applying for MSCA-IF program to a research group, which is already hosting a previously accepted MSCA-IF project, is positive thing or negative? In my opinion it is positive sign because it shows the hosting group has the capacity to win EU grants, but on the other side maybe during evaluation process the awards might be distributed so that the other institute may also get grant for an equal distribution of funds throughout EU region.
SOC2018 on December 29, 2017:
@seeker84 The results are usually announced in late January (Jan. 25th onwards). Be patient and keep your fingers crossed. Hopefully, you will hear some good news soon.
seeker84 on December 29, 2017:
@SOC2018 By the way is their announcement that results will be announce with in a month? As @yaoyaowu mentioned previous years, applicants were able to get their scores by the end of December.
seeker84 on December 29, 2017:
@SOC2018 I hope so :) but I am little bit concern about Brexit as my host institutions are in UK.
yaoyaowu on December 29, 2017:
Hi, does anyone know when will the evaluation summary report be attached on the participant portal? I heard previous years, applicants were able to get their scores by the end of December. But I have not obtained it so far.
SOC2018 on December 29, 2017:
@seeker84 The initial results are expected to be released in about a month! You will be "informed" then, and if you are lucky enough to be among the top candidates you will be "invited" in later stages ;)
seeker84 on December 28, 2017:
Hello everyone. This is my first comment here. However, after reading few comments below I am not confident for my application. I am still at "Informed" stage not "invited" yet. Is it still possible that I may get invited ?
Ben on December 26, 2017:
Hi everyone, how about the 2018 results? Does it notice on Jan. 20th, 2018?
Afrasiyab on December 26, 2017:
Thanks Reserve_Dog. Fingers crossed!
Reserve_Dog on December 20, 2017:
Of course: 92,20
Keep the faith!
SOC-Z on December 20, 2017:
So if all IER and CR reports have been submitted, then what's the wait till feb (well late jan)?
Afrasiyab on December 19, 2017:
Would you mind telling us your score?
GF SOC 2017 on December 19, 2017:
I found the following resource for evaluators: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/guide_f...
The information on evaluation criteria is not new but it is interesting to see the structure/timing of the evaluations. I was told earlier in the year that many universities and NCPs were unhappy with the remote consensus meetings and felt that it resulted in reviews of poorer quality than the in-person consensus meetings. However it looks like we are stuck with the remote consensus meetings again this year. Or I should say, have been stuck with them, as all consensus reports are likely submitted by now.
Reserve_Dog on December 19, 2017:
Same here, I was on the reserve list (soc) but I was invited to prepare the grant agreement two months ago... SURPRISE!!
Keep the faith!
IF_LIF 2016 on December 18, 2017:
I was on the reserve list and I was invinted to sign the grant agreement one month ago!!!
I will start the fellowship next year...I din't expect it after 10 months on the reserve list.
The project officer told me that there was some extra funding.
ACS8 on December 13, 2017:
Hi Shape 33, I am also on the reserve list and haven't received anything...
Shape 33 on December 13, 2017:
Are there still people on the reserve list from 2016 call, who haven't received the decision letter (like me)? Did somebody actually get the rejection?
LazyAnna on December 07, 2017:
@Chem_IF, oh no, dude, it's not me, it's most definitely you. I hope you included that 'writing class' in your MC application, looks like you might need it. Btw, it would have taken you just as much time to explain it as it took you to write that message. You clearly came here to boast, not to be helpful to others. Not cool, mate.
KLAIN on November 30, 2017:
Maybe people should be more useful when they take the time to say their previous experiences so other people don't have to guess...
Don't bother guys...You submitted your proposals and you can't do much at this point so...stay calm and do other stuff until you get the results.
PG on November 30, 2017:
getting the reserve with 98.6 looks hard, maybe was 88.6...
...perhaps one of the twos (or both) he/she has been the supervisor...
Chem_IF on November 28, 2017:
@LazyAnna, you should read my message carefully and then try to understand it.
LazyAnna on November 27, 2017:
@Chem_IF, do I understand it right? So you got the fellowship the first time sometime ago, went for it, and then after a couple of years applied again and got it again? How many years did you have in between? EF both times or something else? I knew it is possible administratively, but I don't know anyone who actually pulled it off. Congrats on both accounts.
Chem_IF on November 15, 2017:
I got it twice. First time from the reserve list (score was 98.6) and the second time in the first list with a score of 94.8. So, you must score above 94 to get it on the first list.
tel on November 13, 2017:
Does anyone know what is the maximum point to be scored for chemistry to get selected for Marie Cuire fellowship. Thank you!
Anxious on November 06, 2017:
I realized that I made a small mistake in the "proposal submission part". Although I filled out the correct address of my department to the section "Department(s) carrying out the proposed work" I selected another country. And I have only realized this now.
Can anybody who has enough experience on submission process tell me how severe this can be? Could they discard my proposal because of this small mistake?
Thanks for helping out!
LazyAnna on November 01, 2017:
girls, guys, and others,
check this out, the requirements are comparable to Marie Curie individual fellowships for the Netherlands.
‘LEaDing Fellows’ is an EU Marie Skłodowska-Curie COFUND Programme running from 2017-2022.
Applicants shall not have spent more than 12 months in the Netherlands in the 3 years immediately prior to the recruitment date. Applicant should have obtained their PhD before the recruitment date and less than 60 months prior to the recruitment date. This application window can be extended with 6 months for pregnancy (per child), parental leave (max. 6 months per child), training for medical specialists (3 years) or compulsory and reserve military service (actual time).
LazyAnna on November 01, 2017:
@IF-Eng 2016, congrats!
@Applicant IIF 201, wow, I wish I had that kind of confidence, asking complete strangers on Internet to send me their winning proposals. Proposals they probably spent weeks to write. Seriously, if this works for you, let me know, I will buy you a beer as a sign of admiration.
Applicant IIF 201 on October 26, 2017:
Hi IF-Eng 2016
I am going to apply in next year Eng.
IF you are comfortable, can you please send me your proposal (email@example.com). I just want to know, how a proposal looks like.
IF-Eng 2016 on October 26, 2017:
Hi, my Marie Curie IF 2016 proposal was in reserve list and recently it got funded.
Mark on September 16, 2017:
does anybody know about the reserve list from CHE panel 2016?
LazyAnna on September 15, 2017:
My estimate is 14% POSSIBLE SUCCESS RATE for MSCA-IF-2017 (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR), MSCA-IF-2017 (MSCA-IF-EF-RI), and MSCA-IF-2017 (MSCA-IF-EF-ST), based on available funding (250 mln), average proposal costs (180,000) and the proposals submitted (7,145).
LazyAnna on September 15, 2017:
A total of 9,089 proposals were submitted in response to this call. The number of proposals for each type of action is shown below:
- Standard European Fellowships (MSCA-IF-EF-ST): 7,145 proposals
- Career Restart Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR): 352 proposals
- Reintegration Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-RI): 561 proposals
- Society & Enterprise Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-SE): 173 proposals
- Global Fellowships (MSCA-IF-GF): 858 proposals
Applicant IIF 201 on September 14, 2017:
Will it be convenient to you to share your proposal to firstname.lastname@example.org. I want to see how a wining proposal looks.
ReserveDog on September 14, 2017:
I wish you the best of luck in your new project!
Applicant IIF 201 on September 13, 2017:
Will it be harsh to ask you, your proposal and ESR?
Godot on September 13, 2017:
Finally found out I got funding today after being on the reserve list since January. Best of luck to all
SOC-IF on September 09, 2017:
Does any one know about correct time distribution per WP? For instance: How many person/month can we devote to data collection and analysis, dissemination, communication, etc... to make our application "convincing" for reviewers?
Chem_IF on September 08, 2017:
I got it last year in Chemistry with 94.8 score. I could help if anyone needs it in applying MC in Chemistry.
Carl on September 07, 2017:
Dear fellow applicants for 2017 IFs, do I understand correctly that the 'summary' is not part of the 10 pages in Part B1 anymore, but is only featured in Part A?
bgchem on August 25, 2017:
I would like to apply for the fellowship this year, if anybody got it in chemistry, could you please help? thanks
HalimWater on August 18, 2017:
can we know the accepted research topic in the previous calls of Individual Fellowships (IF)
alok on June 19, 2017:
Hi - Can someone share the link for detailed documents to apply for IIF -2017 scheme?
Godot on June 12, 2017:
Congrats IF-Physics. Good to know at least some people have been called up. I was thinking the people who are called are less likely to post here rather than those of us still waiting, so very considerate of you to let us know. Hard to know if it is good news or bad news or means anything at all for us still waiting. Cannot see the benefit of the process being so un transparent.
Just waiting on June 08, 2017:
"if-physics", congrats. Thank you for letting us know that the process of inviting proposals from the reserve list has started.
Mark on June 08, 2017:
tnx u a lot if-physics. which one you have been on waiting list?
if-physics on June 08, 2017:
I just got the email that my waitlisted proposal has been invited - good luck!
Just waiting on June 08, 2017:
Maybe no reserve list this year. I just googled to see how long it took for the Commission to start inviting proposals in the past. Never this late.
Just waiting on June 01, 2017:
No news. What's most troubling is there is no place we can inquire and get an update. So, it seems we will hear when we hear.
Mark on May 31, 2017:
I am also on the reseve list, but I have no info.
Godot on May 31, 2017:
So May is over, has anyone on the reserve list received an offer? I am reserved on ENV-IF panel and heard nothing.
Godot on May 21, 2017:
It seemed much more transparent under the old "people" scheme. I agree with it being soul destroying. Waiting with no idea where in the process your application might be is not good for your mental health, especially in today's research environment.
Just waiting on May 19, 2017:
Not yet. REA must have concluded grant agreements with proposals retained for funding. More than three months passed since the announcement of results. MarieCurie Facebook page also declared that REA would tap into the reserve list in May. Waiting is a soul destroying process, and there is no update.
Godot on May 18, 2017:
Anyone heard anything on reserve list?
Mark on April 21, 2017:
Anybody from the reserve list, chemistry panel? any news?
MC-reserve on April 17, 2017:
Has anybody from the reserve list already been contacted? So far I think there are no news on the Seal of Excellence.
AlmostThere on April 15, 2017:
Any news on the seal of Excellence?
LazyAnna on February 13, 2017:
I am going to apply this year, and by reading those comments I figured I am in for a lot of work. Then again, probably it's a good thing I started looking already now. Any advice is appreciated. PS. I tried looking up the other forum suggested, and it doesn't work.
.... on February 01, 2017:
95.2, LIF, got it
Shape33 on January 31, 2017:
I am on reserve list (ST CHE) with a mark of 90.8. From the very limited information that that I can find, I think my chances are extremely low.
The NCP did not give me any information because it is confidential they said.
SK on January 31, 2017:
Is there any information on when the Seals of Excellence will be sent ?
Damian on January 31, 2017:
For the 2015 call a total of 50 proposals were on the GF reserve list. It seems that 3 of these projects were funded (I guess because funding became available).
Damian on January 31, 2017:
For those on the reserve list, you can contact your national contact point, and find out how many are on your list and where you are placed. For example, for the GF-ENG proposals, 16 proposal are on the main list, and 5 proposals are on the reserve list.
renakre on January 30, 2017:
EF-ENG 91 IN RESERVE LIST