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.

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.

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.

NCPs cannot share examples of successful MSCA PF proposals due to copyright ownership. Applicants and research managers should be contacting previous MSCA fellows directly.

As clarified in the EC FAQ 16399, there can be only one supervisor per host institution. As European Fellowships have only one host institution, fellows can only have one supervisor. For Global Fellowships, an additional supervisor should also be appointed for the time spent at the associated partner for the outgoing phase. Other (senior) colleagues supporting the supervision of the fellow at the same host institution can be included as ‘mentors’ in the descriptive part of the proposal.

Applicants should follow the formatting guidelines in the 2022 MSCA PF Standard Application Template, which they can download from the Funding and Tenders Opportunities Portal.

• The non-academic placement can only take part in a EU Member State or a country associated to Horizon Europe, at the end of the MSCA Fellowship and only for a maximum of 6 months. 
• The host institution for this placement needs to be from the non-academic sector. Interested organisations should check their sectoral status assigned by the European Commission during the validation process on the FTOP. 
• The host institution for the non-academic placement must provide a letter of commitment for the application. A template is available in section “8. Letter(s) of commitment from associated partners (only for hosts of outgoing phase of Global Fellowships or non-academic placement)” in the MSCA PF Standard Application Template which can be downloaded from the FTOP submission system.
• A dedicated budget for the non-academic placement is available in the 2022 MSCA PF call. Care must be taken to encode the request for a non-academic placement correctly in the online submission system. Applicants are encouraged to check the REA’s document on most common mistakes in MSCA PF proposals. 

In this case, the applicant must still select the keywords in the drop-down menu in the Part A which would best describe their research as explained in the EC FAQ 16507. They can also provide additional information on their research area in the “free keywords” section of the Part A. The vice chairs of the evaluation panels will take this information into account when allocating proposals to evaluators.

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.