No % required for matching funds so it is up to the applicant to determine how much they will contribute to the total funding pot acknowledging that the EU funding will only cover the minimum remuneration required for the researchers.

Applicants can either require in the eligibility conditions that a candidate is from an under-represented group, or alternatively they can say that anyone can apply, but the evaluation criteria should include a statement of how the fellowship will boost diversity in this broad science field. It depends on the aims of the proposed programme. In case the eligibility conditions should be stricter, again it needs to be justified. The MSCA mobility/ eligibility conditions must be respected in all cases.

It is possible but it needs to be well justified in the proposal so that evaluators see the pertinence/ relevance/ added value of the proposed programme. There have been a few programmes focusing at specific target groups in the past. Examples:

Rosalind Franklin Fellowship Cofund Programme

REinforcingWomen In Research

VINNMER-PEOPLE

If the fellow was 1) performing their main activity in the lab based abroad and they were physically present there, and/ or 2) they were also residing abroad, then they should be considered eligible for France.

It is unlikely to have ethical issues identified for COFUND at the proposal stage (at least in most cases), given that the research is unknown in most cases, so the ethics issues would appear as ‘’NO’’ in the majority if not all cases. The part referred to in part A is for the applicant to explain the issues they have ticked “YES” in the table. Part B is very relevant for COFUND, as REA wants a detailed description of the ethics procedure to be carried out in order to identify ethics issues (if any) and how to follow up on them giving that at the proposal stage they are normally unknown.

Economic/ technological and Societal impact sub-sections in 2.4 are linked to the (economic) impact. What impact the project results, not only in terms of research results but also in terms of the results of the programme as such (e.g. new concept of training, new approach, etc.).

This section is linked to the European Innovation CAPACITY. It is not focusing on IMPACT (which is strongly linked to the project results) but on CAPACITY or creating critical mass. Thus this section is more linked to the delivery of uniquely trained researchers in a certain topic. This can contribute to the CAPACITY (e.g. next generation researchers that have unique and improved skills and level of expertise compared to the researchers today in and outside Europe, etc.).

For Table 3.1d in case of one researcher with split/ multiple recruitments, the applicant can complete the table only once, listing both/ all recruitments. The same goes for table 1.3a provided that the table is clear and easy to understand and has the information about the two recruitments per fellow.

It would be good to have the eight elements listed on p. 82 of the Work Programme 2021-2022 already in the proposal, however, if the applicants don’t have enough space, REA will add them at the grant agreement preparation phase.

If the fellow was 1) performing their main activity in the lab based abroad and they were physically present there, and/ or 2) they were also residing abroad, then they should be considered eligible for France.

Timesheets and declarations are not requested in MSCA projects (contrary to other Horizon Europe actions based on actual costs). To prove that the researcher worked on their MSCA project, it is sufficient to present a contract with the host institution together with additional documents proving the fellow’s dedication to the project, if needed.

Moreover, declarations are not allowed by the auditors. REA has confirmed that the declaration on exclusive work is not applicable for audits carried out in MSCA ITN, IF and COFUND actions to determine time spent working on the action. It is expected this will continue in Horizon Europe.

As outlined in the H2020 Indicative Audit Programme, such evidence may include lab books, attendance lists, conference abstracts, library records, travel expenses, timesheets, reports to supervisor, meeting minutes, e-mail exchanges, etc. and other open sources (e.g. the internet) to see if the researcher worked on activities other than their  project. The auditors will also look at the researcher’s employment contract or corresponding agreement to see if it complies with Article 32 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement, including but not limited to the obligation that the researcher works exclusively for the action.

Fellows need documentation in the form of a contract that shows the 50% commitment or something similar since MSCA does not typically operate with timesheets.

When talking about impact, this is prospective, it is in the future, assuming that the project is successful and that it achieves everything that it set up to achieve. The applicants could base themselves on some other studies to strengthen or build their case about the impact they could have, before the impact is actually achieved.

There are different scientific panels and proposals are ranked within their scientific panel. Proposals in some panels are more STEM-oriented and would have a different kind of impact than proposals in the SOC panel for instance, but these proposals would not compete against the STEM-oriented proposals. It should also be considered that the impact is now broadened to encompass not only a purely scientific impact but also impact on the society at large. This can be an area where the SSH proposals could actually have a competitive advantage.

The first thing to note is, that even though they cannot directly claim costs, it does not mean that they cannot indirectly receive some funding for the role they have in the DN. Typically for each unit cost, there is one part that goes to the researcher and then there is the institutional part, and this part should not be seen as funding for just this particular fellow, and this beneficiary. It is rather a common pot for the whole consortium to run the project. In the consortium agreement the consortium defines how this is split. This funding can be distributed to the different partners according to their needs in the project: some partners provide more trainings, for instance, the coordinator typically has more management costs, so this funding can be redistributed, and some of this money can go to associated partners to cover the costs of them hosting researchers for secondments, or for them to provide trainings. So these are internal arrangements within the consortium (in the broader sense with the associated partners) so they can get indirectly money for their action. Of course, there are also non-financial incentives; the interest for them to participate could be transfer of knowledge or being part of a dynamic network and being associated to the research project.

For PF, direct financial benefits may not be there but there are plenty indirect benefits – scientific contributions, networking, getting experience in this type of projects, hosting events.

In this case, the 3-month secondment undertaken at the host organisation selected for your return phase (the beneficiary organisation) counts as part of the outgoing phase and is automatically included in the funding requested for that phase in the budget table of the Part A. This starting secondment undertaken at the beginning of the Fellowship has no effect on the length of the return phase, which has to be 12 months. As clarified on page 11 of the MSCA PF Guide for Applicants, this 3-month starting secondment must be included within the maximum 1/3 duration of the secondment.

The Funding and Tenders Portal (FTOP) submission system has been set up in a way that MSCA PF proposals can be created and submitted by a designated contact person from the host institution, the supervisor or the researcher. Any person creating an application in the FTOP system can give access rights to other parties, allowing them to submit the proposal (“full access”). However, as the submission of the proposal and other actions that follow this procedure (such as a withdrawal or, if successful, the grant agreement signature) ultimately fall under the responsibility of the host organisation, it is advised that the host institution submits the proposal on behalf of the researcher (EC FAQ 911). 

The criterion for resubmission for both the European Fellowship (EF) and the Global Fellowship (GF) under the 2022 MSCA Call is detailed on p.6 of the MSCA PF Guide for Applicants and p. 88 of the Horizon Europe 2021-22 MSCA Work Programme as follows:

“Proposals involving the same recruiting organisation (and for Global Postdoctoral Fellowships also the associated partner hosting the outgoing phase) and individual researcher submitted to the previous call of MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships under Horizon Europe and having received a score of less than 70% must not be resubmitted the following year.” 

In addition, REA has published the following clarifications:

     – Applicants who scored less than 70% when applying for the EF scheme in the 2021 call can apply with the same recruiting organisation to the 2022 MSCA GF scheme (EC FAQ 19933)

    – Correspondingly, applicants who scored less than 70% when applying for the GF scheme in the 2021 call can apply with the same recruiting organisation to the 2022 MSCA EF scheme (EC FAQ 19933).

     – If an applicant reapplies with the same recruiting institution(s), but with a completely new, novel and different proposal than the version which was previously submitted and received a score below 70%, REA will consider this proposal a resubmission and declare it ineligible (EC FAQ 19934).

     – Researchers are allowed to resubmit a Horizon 2020 Individual Fellowship (IF) proposal that scored below 70% with the same recruiting organization(s), provided that all other eligibility criteria have been met (EC FAQ 19938).

     – If an applicant reapplies with the same recruiting institution(s), but with a new supervisor than the version which was previously submitted and received a score below 70%, REA will consider this proposal a resubmission and declare it ineligible (EC FAQ 19936).

     – Applicants who scored less than 70% when applying for the GF scheme in the 2021 call can apply with the same hosting organisation to the 2022 MSCA EF scheme if they change the outgoing host in the resubmitted proposal and meet all other eligibility criteria (EC FAQ 19935).

– If an applicant reapplies with the same recruiting institution(s), but would be hosted at different premises than in the version which was previously submitted and received a score below 70%, REA will consider this proposal a resubmission and declare it ineligible (EC FAQ 19937)

The period spent in a non-research position should be deducted from the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) experience in research. The percentage of FTE for non-research activities outside of the researcher’s main research activity must be clearly documented, e.g. by a work contract/job description. These documents are not to be included in the MSCA PF application, but the host organisation (beneficiary) must keep them for their records in case of an audit.

The Research Executive Agency (REA) published a dedicated guidance and a self-assessment tool to support applicants with calculating their research experience for the MSCA PF call purposes. Both documents are available on the “How to Apply to MSCA” website in the “Postdoctoral Fellowships” section.  

Yes, it is possible to terminate the fellowship earlier than planned, especially if the fellow has found an attractive job offer. The host institution needs to put in place an amendment to terminate the grant. The amounts corresponding to unspent months will have to be returned to the EC, but the funding corresponding to the project months already implemented does not have to be returned.

Timesheets and declarations are not requested in MSCA projects (contrary to other Horizon Europe actions based on actual costs). To prove that the researcher worked on their MSCA project, it is sufficient to present a contract with the host institution together with additional documents proving the fellow’s dedication to the project, if needed.

Moreover, declarations are not allowed by the auditors. REA has confirmed that the declaration on exclusive work is not applicable for audits carried out in MSCA ITN, IF and COFUND actions to determine time spent working on the action. It is expected this will continue in Horizon Europe.

As outlined in the H2020 Indicative Audit Programme, such evidence may include lab books, attendance lists, conference abstracts, library records, travel expenses, timesheets, reports to supervisor, meeting minutes, e-mail exchanges, etc. and other open sources (e.g. the internet) to see if the researcher worked on activities other than their  project. The auditors will also look at the researcher’s employment contract or corresponding agreement to see if it complies with Article 32 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement, including but not limited to the obligation that the researcher works exclusively for the action.

Fellows need documentation in the form of a contract that shows the 50% commitment or something similar since MSCA does not typically operate with timesheets.

Organisations can only encode secondments that are eligible for EC funding. So organisations could encode the secondments going to the UK, but not those from the UK to a beneficiary. It is the dates included in the mobility declarations (previously researchers’ declarations) which are used for financial reporting.  

The researcher is eligible to participate, the change of status does not affect their eligibility.

The UK partners will be funded with the UKRI Horizon Europe Guarantee, in line with the original budget line. They will no longer be able to be included as a beneficiary but will need to become Associated Partners (APs).  Secondments to UK APs from Member States (MS) and/ or Associated Countries (AC) will be funded by the EC as originally foreseen in the proposal. Secondments from UK APs to MS/ AC/ other APs will be funded via UKRI, in line with the budget line and secondment plan in the proposal. Secondments from another AP to the UK will also be funded via UKRI.