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.

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.

All Open Science aspects are moved under Excellence in the methodology. Open Access should not be described under Impact and Dissemination as it is assessed under Excellence.

This requirement should be applicable to beneficiaries and not to associated partners.

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.

Yes. For eligibility purposes, weeks outside the host country are taken into account. The most important thing is to clearly indicate it in the application forms and researcher’s CV (proposal Part A & B2).

To get rid of the warning message blocking the submission, applicants should link the deliverables with WP1.

An official resubmission is a proposal with the same host organisation and researcher. Since the host institution for both GF and EF would be the European partner, a proposal with the same beneficiary would be considered a resubmission.

There are no limitations as to when the researcher can go on maternity leave during the fellowship. An issue might be the employment contract. Some employment contracts stipulate that for paid parental leave the researchers need to have been employed for a set period of time. This doesn’t mean they can’t take the leave, just that it isn’t paid.

It is possible to postpone the actual start date without losing the grant. The initial start date in the contract cannot be further away than the legally allowed date, but it can be further postponed then with an amendment. The researcher needs to contact the project officer and explain the situation.

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.