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.

A COFUND project can be designed in many different ways and it is up to the beneficiary to decide how the researchers are funded. If the beneficiary wants to include a family allowance after the recruitment, it is OK, but it is not a formal requirement from the EC/ REA. It can of course be evaluated positively by the evaluators as clear support to offer the best conditions to the fellows. In addition, this would be unlikely, as in H2020 the MSCA rules did not foresee changes in the eligibility for family allowance during the fellowship duration.

“Partner Organisations” means both type of partners: associated or implementing.

Implementing partners have a bigger role, however, this was harmonised among the MSCA actions and associated partners are supposed to appear in part A for all actions. COFUND is the only action which has implementing partners and therefore it is slightly different.

The deadlines and procedures are set out in the evaluation result letter. For more information on complaints about proposal rejection: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding-tenders-opportunities/display/OM/Complaints+about+proposal+rejection.

This option is fine. It is important to clearly state that all fellows will be enrolled into doctoral studies. It is quite difficult for beneficiaries to commit to the awarding of a doctoral degree to each recruited researcher at a specific date, given that the PhD programmes duration can be different from an institution to another and that unpredictable events can delay the PhD thesis completion.

Yes, each student must be enrolled in a double degree awarded by two participating organisations from MS/ AC. If an associated partner from a third country delivers a degree to a student, there should also be two other beneficiaries/ associated partners from MS/ AC delivering a degree to the same student.

An anti-plagiarism tool is used to flag any potential cases but REA are aware that a certain percentage of similarities will be explained by the templates or some standardized parts from institutions. REA only focuses on most critical cases.

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.

It is recommended that at first there is an effort to ensure that the outgoing host respects the agreement – especially if they signed a partnership agreement with the beneficiary. For the amendment it is necessary to have evidence that the beneficiary has at least attempted to make it work before they propose the amendment. Also the researcher should properly document the shortcomings.

Brief information should be provided in part B1 and more details should be provided in part B2.

Secondments are not encoded as an associated partner. They should be declared in the specific question at the end of Part A, and detailed in Part B. This is reflected in the structure of the participants’ information in the submission wizard: • EF: possibility to encode one host organisation and one associated partner (which is only used in case of a placement) • GF: possibility to encode one host organisation and two associated partners (one mandatory, as outgoing phase host, and one optional in case of a placement).

Unfortunately, REA cannot intervene to alter a submitted proposal after the call deadline. However, if after the evaluation the proposal reaches the funding threshold, the beneficiary can further discuss to clarify the secondment issue during the Grant preparation (GAP) with the Project Officer assigned to the proposal.

There is no need to submit a separate application for the widening call. This is the procedure, as described on p.56 of the Widening participation and strengthening the European Research Area Work programme 2021-2022: “In order to apply for the ERA Fellowships call, applicants need to submit their proposal to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA) Postdoctoral Fellowships 2021. To be eligible to this call the host organisation must be located in an eligible widening country. The application to the (MSCA) Postdoctoral Fellowships 2021 will be automatically resubmitted to this call in case the proposal fails to reach an adequate place in the ranking to be funded. This simplified submission procedure to the ERA Fellowships call presents applicants moving to Widening countries with an additional funding opportunity but there is the possibility to opt out during the application stage.”

All participating organisations should be added, either as “beneficiary” or “associated partners” (including both the associated partners and the associated partners linked to a beneficiary). Applicants would declare the main beneficiary as beneficiary/participant and the associated partner linked to this beneficiary adding both as partners by clicking on the button “Add Partner”. For more information please see FAQ n 18851.

Applicants should list the secondments between beneficiaries that are considered interdisciplinary. This table will be used to help determine the eligibility of the secondments. Applicants can provide an additional table for interdisciplinary secondments with associated partners, or just discuss them in the text.

There are two ways to address this aspect: – Institutions can add PM in both Work packages but they have to explain that those are in-kind and are not related to secondments as such, as these will not be eligible. OR – Institutions can indicate two levels of PM: secondments PM (supported through project funding) and total PM spent on project (just indicative), and make a clear distinction between the two categories.