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 reference identifier in the researchers table in part A of the proposal corresponds to a unique code that a researcher can use to easily identify him/ herself and his/ her work. There is a breakdown menu where the researcher can select the preferred type of identifier (ORCID ID (commonly used to refer to all publications of an author…), Researcher ID, others).

There are no such templates beyond the standard consortium agreement template, such as the one provided by DESCA (https://www.desca-agreement.eu/desca-model-consortium-agreement/).

The number of funded DN projects from the reserve list is normally lower than these from the PF reserve list.

“Multiple recruitment” means that the researcher has several work contracts during the fellowship. For example, during the first half of the fellowship they have a contract with a company and then during the rest of the fellowship, with a university.

Applicants may describe the network organisation in one and up to two pages, for sections 4 and 5 together, based on the consortium size and complexity, and/ or they have a full programme to implement the Green Charter and yet, there is no limit – they could elaborate as much as they want.

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.

Open Science practices should be covered under sub-criterion 1.2. where applicants should explain briefly how appropriate open science practices are implemented as an integral part of the proposed methodology and how the choice of practices and their implementation are adapted to the nature of the work, in a way that will increase the chances of achieving the objectives.

The entity established in a non-associated Third Country hosting the outgoing phase must be an associated partner (i.e. which participates in the action but without the right to charge costs or claim contributions). This means that it cannot be an organisation linked to the beneficiary.

The concept of Key Pathways to Impact is not so relevant for PF. From the PF point of view, being a mono-beneficiary action with only one host institution and some associated partners, it is more straightforward. The concept of Key Pathways to Impact could be discussed in very general terms in a proposal.

Independent publishing is not considered as research experience and, hence, does not affect the calculation of the 8-year rule.

There is no need for detailed work plan for the non-academic placement, though it must be mentioned in the Gantt chart. The rationale and added value of the placement should be explained carefully in sub-criterion 1.3.

No, table 5.1 is only for the associated and implementing partners. The beneficiary will be included in the table in the beginning of part B soon after the start page ‘Information on the Beneficiary’.

The only option in such cases is having more than 2/3 of the secondments to/ from Switzerland. The Guide for Applicants 2021 states on p. 6: “There is no pre-defined size for Staff Exchanges projects. However, it is recommended to keep the size of the consortium between 6 to 10 organisations. As for the number of associated partners, it should remain reasonable and commensurate with the size of the network.” Some evaluators could highlight weaknesses due to the distribution of the secondments. It is better to increase the number of partners from 3 to 6. This will provide more possibilities for secondments distribution.

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.

Secondments from/ to branches/ departments of beneficiaries/ partner organisations that are not separate legal entities, are NOT eligible, if they are located in countries other than the country of their beneficiary/ partner organisation.

The total person-months for the Associated Partners linked to a beneficiary should be encoded together with the main beneficiary (e.g. University A.) in the budget table. That means, the total person-months must be encoded only into the beneficiary budget and no budget should be encoded for the associated partners linked to a beneficiary. There will be a warning in the form because the associated partner linked to beneficiary budget will be zero. This does not prevent from submitting. In case the number of secondments from the Associated Partners linked to a beneficiary is substantial, they should appear as beneficiary/participant only (not Associated Partners linked to a beneficiary). Applicants should list and detail the relation of the other Associated Partners linked to a beneficiary (e.g. University B) in part B.