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.

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.

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.

For calls with deadlines in 2022 and beyond, once a project proposal is selected for funding following evaluations, consortium partners concerned by the eligibility criterion will have until Grant Agreement signature to confirm they have a GEP in place.

For calls with deadlines in 2022 and beyond, once a project proposal is selected for funding following evaluations, consortium partners concerned by the eligibility criterion will have until Grant Agreement signature to confirm they have a GEP in place.

This is mainly for statistics purposes.

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.