Event: 10-Jun-2024, 10am-12pm
Indicative opening date: 29-May-2024
Indicative deadline: 29-Aug-2024
Registration is required through: ERC 2024 Advanced Grant: Call Information Webinar 1 of 2 – UKRO
UKRO, in its capacity as UK NCP for the European Research Council, will hold a webinar on the ERC 2024 Advanced Grant call. There are yearly calls for these prestigious Advanced Grants for senior researchers. Up to € 2.5 million for a period of 5 years. (pro rata for projects of shorter duration). However, an additional € 1 million can be made available to cover eligible “start-up” costs for researchers moving from a third country to the EU or an associated country and/or the purchase of major equipment and/or access to large facilities and/or other major experimental and field work costs.
The webinar is a good chance to find out more.
In CS Angelo Cangelosi holds an ERC Adv Grant.
[from Liz Fay]
EU Update - ERC sets out rationale for evaluation changes
The ERC Scientific Council has implemented changes to the evaluation processes and application forms for 2024 research proposals, following recent debates on research assessment. In a dedicated report, entitled “Evaluation of research proposals: the why and what of the ERC’s recent changes” ERC President Maria Leptin gives an overview of the changes and the reasoning behind them.
The changes, explains Professor Leptin, address the issue that current assessment systems often use narrow methods to evaluate research quality, performance, and impact.
The main changes (as previously reported by UKRO) include the following:
- The description of required ‘profiles’ of ERC PIs has been removed from the Work Programme.
- In the application form, the CV and track record, previously two separate documents, are now combined as a single template.
In a recent Interview ERC President Maria Leptin set out the rationale for evaluation changes
“High-risk, high-gain” was confusing for applicants
The European Research Council has explained recent changes to its project proposal evaluation strategy, including why it no longer bills itself as a “high-risk, high-gain” funder. Established in 2007, the ERC has become the EU’s flagship funder of basic research, and has a 2024 budget of about €2.22 billion to support single researchers at all career stages as well as teams of leading principal investigators. For its 2024 calls, the funder changed how it evaluates proposals, both in terms of the information it seeks from applicants and how information is considered.
Risky business
The ERC no longer specifies that it seeks proposals for “high-risk, high-gain” projects. In the report, ERC president Maria Leptin said this phrase “was seen as potentially confusing and problematic”. It was intended to discourage evaluation panels from being conservative, Leptin explained, adding that the funder is still not backing away from the risk that a project will produce unpredictable results. But, she added, a researcher may have preliminary data indicating that ground-breaking work has a relatively high chance of success—and such projects would be welcome to the ERC. “We stress that the ERC continues to look for proposals that address important challenges and hope that the research funded by the ERC will lead to major advances at the frontier of knowledge,”. “However…the terms ‘ambitious’, ‘creative and original’ are better descriptors for the kinds of proposals the ERC should fund.”
Projects before people
In addition, the ERC is now putting more emphasis on projects than their proposers and no longer numerically grading proposals for both the planned work and the applicant themselves. Leptin said this is because, under the previous method for assessment, an application for a weak project from a strong researcher could end up with a similar score in the first evaluation phase as an application for a brilliant project from “a less accomplished” researcher. This left brilliant proposals at risk of not being funded for reasons including that the proposing researcher was based at a less well funded institution, with this impacting unjustly on the researcher themselves. She said that, nonetheless, ERC scientific council members “found it important to understand the track record and CV of the applicant to decide whether to select the application for in-depth evaluation in the second step”. Therefore, the funder decided to evaluate projects first, and assign them a numerical grade used for ranking. Applicants are assessed qualitatively and the two assessments are not combined into an overall score. “In this way, the evaluation should give more weight to the project than to the applicant,”.
Supervision and publication
The ERC no longer asks applicants how many other researchers they have supervised. This is because “numbers alone are not sufficient to assess whether a principal investigator has been a good advisor”. We were unable to come up with any other reliable and fair measure for ‘good mentorship’ and thus concluded that this information should no longer be asked for,”. The ERC has also stopped steering applicants towards peer-reviewed journals when setting out their track record, Leptin said, because “some ground-breaking discoveries may only have been posted on pre-print servers, [or] been published in niche or specialist journals, while others may be in entirely different formats or platforms, and in some disciplines national publications may be the most relevant and important”.