For calls with deadlines in 2022 and beyond, once a project proposal is selected for funding following evaluations, consortium partners concerned by the eligibility criterion will have until Grant Agreement signature to confirm they have a GEP in place.

This is mainly for statistics purposes.

External evaluation agencies would be seen as service providers, the applicant shall explain that they will be using an external agency when describing the evaluation and selection process under excellence, no need of letter of commitment in this case as they are not partners.

Own resources mean all resources – beneficiaries + implementing partners + associated partners (if applicable).

Yes, they will assess if the appropriate level of co-financing is committed to effectively implement the proposal.

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.

The resubmission 70% rule applies as of 2021 proposals and re-submission in 2022. The conditions for MSCA-PF as stated on page 83-91 of the MSCA Work Programme 2021-2022 apply to both 2021 and 2022 calls, so it means that 2021 proposals cannot be resubmitted in 2022 and 2022 proposals cannot be resubmitted in 2023. Quoting page 85: “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.” It means also that the researcher can (re)submit the proposal with a different host, so they are not totally banned from applying the following year.

In principle, yes, if for the 3 months the main activity would be in the other country, they would be eligible. However, if for example this is a secondment and their employment contract remains with the organisation in their home country, it probably does not classify as such and would rather be a ’short visit’ in the sense of the mobility rule.

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.