Monthly Archives: August 2016

Vania Almeida: Are you writing a Marie Curie Individual Fellowship proposal? These tips can be useful!


At this time, you should be prepared to review and edit your manuscript. My personal advice is: attention to the details!

In the last stage of my proposal, i.e. after to have a first draft ready for editing, I spent some time looking at evaluation forms. In my opinion this is a great help in the final editing process. You can find the self-evaluation form here

Today, I will share with you my personal experience and evaluation report. I hope you find some of this information useful and that you can use it to improve your proposal.

Criterion 1: Excellence – 4.70 (Weight: 50.00%)

Strengths of the proposal: multidisciplinary research project; clarity of objectives; research methodology adequate and well described; bidirectional transfer of knowledge between the experienced researcher and the host institutions demonstrated; inclusion of a career development plan.

Weaknesses of the proposal: weak technical description of a specific idea.

Some comments from the evaluators:

“A well-structured and relevant training programme, with appropriate transferable and technical skills development, is presented.”

“There is a commitment to work with the experienced researcher to develop a career development plan, which is to be commended.”

“The expertise of the host institutions and the supervisors is clearly demonstrated, of high quality, multidisciplinar and match perfectly the research objectives.”

”The experienced researcher has clearly identified the objective of obtaining a permanent academic position and shows the potential to reinforce the position of professional maturity after the fellowship.”

Criterion 2: Impact – 4.80 (Weight: 30.00%)

Strengths of the proposal: impact on the researcher’s career well demonstrated; dissemination, communication and public engagement strategy well detailed; preliminary plans for commercial and clinical exploitation included.

Weaknesses of the proposal: intellectual property issues not very well detailed.

Some comments from the evaluators:

“The applicant will acquire a diverse set of skills, not only related to the research methodology, but also to administrative and project management.”

“The Dissemination strategy is clearly described and all the relevant channels are properly taken into account.”

 Criterion 3: Implementation – 4.80 (Weight: 20.00%)

Strengths of the proposal: work plan well-articulated and coherent; deliverables and milestones well documented; commitment of the host institution clearly demonstrated.

Weaknesses of the proposal: timing of secondment and dissemination activities unclear (it is really important to have a detailed Gantt chart, it should include public engagement, workshop activities and conferences planned).

Some comments from the evaluators:

“The management structure and procedures, including quality management, are appropriate and professional.”

“Both host institution and secondment partner have the necessary infrastructure to support the activities of the experienced researcher.”

“The participating organizations form a balanced consortium and have the necessary complementary competences and experience.”


I got a total score of 95%.