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.

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 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.

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.