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.

Evaluators are instructed to strictly stick to the evaluation criteria, and REA are closely monitoring that. Please note that if such a construction weakens the proposal in any way, according to the evaluation criteria, then it will be penalised under this criterion.

There is no concept of ‘affiliated entities’ in DN, there is the concept of associated partners linked to a beneficiary, whereby there was a pre-existing link between the associated partner and the beneficiary, not created for the purpose of the proposal. Their eligibility is linked to the eligibility of the beneficiary to which they are legally linked.

The institutions involved would be aware of their status as validated by the EC validation services when they get their final PIC.

A helpful list is that of the members of EIROforum: https://www.eiroforum.org/about-eiroforum/members/

In such cases, they should be included as “simple” associated partners, and the link should be described in parts B1 and B2.

In such cases, they should be included as “simple” associated partners, and the link should be described in parts B1 and B2.

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.

The UK can continue to participate in Horizon Europe in line with the EC Q&A published earlier this year. “The General Annexes of the Horizon Europe Work Programme (2021-2022) ensure that UK applicants are treated as if the UK is an associated country throughout the process, from admissibility and eligibility to evaluation, up until the preparation of grant agreements. However, grant agreements can only be signed if the association has come into force. The same treatment is also granted to any applicants from other associated countries currently engaged with the European Commission in an active process of association.” Thus the UK is eligible to host European Fellowships or the return phase of Global Fellowships.

It depends on the practice of the host. Most places are likely to be fine with an arrangement that a person works from home one or two days a week. This may also be a case-by-case question, depending on the type of research. At the same time, applicants should consider the level of knowledge exchange when working from home.

Orange exclamation marks are only warnings and they are not blocking issues. This warning can be ignored and the registration process can go ahead.

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.

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.