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.

There are 3 possible links: [Same group] if the legal entity is under the same direct or indirect control as another legal entity; [Controls] if a legal entity directly or indirectly controls another legal entity; or [Is controlled by] if a legal entity is directly or indirectly controlled by another legal entity.

It depends because some proposals can be very similar, for instance in the case of resubmission; and others are not quite similar, but they are still considered similar, for instance in the case of continuation. Even if the applicant mentions that a similar proposal has been submitted, this will be checked very carefully by REA. If after checking REA sees it is not the case, they will not consider it to be similar.

Formally if there is not an accreditation, then it would not be counted as a joint, double or multiple degrees.The policy objective behind the DNs is mutual recognition and capacity building and to have the same recognition of the doctoral degrees from the different universities and different countries at the same level. It is difficult but just providing mentorship would not qualify completely.

The answer is in between. It is not necessary to have already at proposal stage the programmes officially recognised and the joint or multiple doctorates in place but for joint doctorates, there is a commitment of several doctoral degree awarding institutions, who have this mutually official recognition of the different curricula. So it is necessary that at the end of the projects, all the fellows involved in the joint doctorates, have a joint, multiple or double degree. It’s a very lengthy process, usually underestimated by applicants. There are strong rules about curriculum design in different universities from different countries.

In the MSCA-DN template ‘other diversity aspects’ refers to biological characteristics and social/ cultural factors respectively, aspects that are not fully under ‘gender’ but are considered as ‘other diversity aspects’. In MSCA the scope is a little bit wider than in the other Horizon Europe parts.

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.

Regarding header and footer content, there are no strict specifications in the template or the guiding materials. Applicants can include the proposal acronym and action type in the header if they wish. In the same logic, REA would not reject a proposal for not having included the grey part “EU Grants: Application form (HE MSCA PF): V1.1 – 05.05.2022” in the header.

This is a possible option:

“Call: HORIZON-MSCA-2022-PF-01-01 – [MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2022 – EF]               ACRONYM” Or “Call: HORIZON-MSCA-2022-PF-01-01 – [MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2022 – GF]               ACRONYM”

Тhey can list ‘submitted’ and ‘under review’, but they should be ignored by the reviewers. Under review/ submitted always means that they can still be rejected, so they cannot be seen as an accomplishment.

In cases where it is materially impossible to provide an employment contract due to exceptionally difficult circumstances (e.g. situations of war or armed conflict, natural disasters, etc.), an official letter from the employer, duly signed and stamped, stating the start and end dates, and describing the tasks performed by the employee could be accepted instead of the employment contract. In the particular case mentioned, it would be important to highlight that, in addition to the above, the letter should specify and quantify the time spent outside the main research activity so that the time spent not working in research could be deducted from the FTE experience in research.

In 2022 REA is keeping the same approach as for the 2021 call, meaning that the headings cannot be cut. The content in the template needs to be kept as such, without deleting the explanatory text in the parenthesis.

If a person leaves the EU for 12 months or longer, they lose the status of the long-term resident and the count starts from scratch. So if the period spent in the third country was 12 months or more, they are no longer considered long-term residents.

This is mainly for statistics purposes.

‘Associated partners’ are entities which participate in the action, but do not sign the grant agreement, without the right to charge costs or claim contributions. They contribute to the implementation of the action, for instance hosting secondments.

Linked third parties can be added as Associated partners linked to a Beneficiary. The type of link and involvement and activities of such entities must be clearly described in the proposal, Part B, and it will be assessed as part of the evaluation.

In the current text of the Work Programme no letter of commitment is required for Associated partners linked to a beneficiary.

There are 3 possible links: [Same group] if the legal entity is under the same direct or indirect control as another legal entity; [Controls] if a legal entity directly or indirectly controls another legal entity; or [Is controlled by] if a legal entity is directly or indirectly controlled by another legal entity.