FAQs
- Home
- FAQs
The list of FAQs, which contains questions for the current Framework Programme (Horizon Europe), is updated with questions taken from the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions Q&A Blog. Make sure that you visit the blog for the latest FAQs on MSCA.
For MSCA FAQs pertaining to the previous Framework Programme (Horizon 2020) visit the old blog which the project will also update on a regular basis.
COFUND
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.
Doctoral Networks
This is up to the experts to assess; all networks are highly encouraged to follow what is explained in FAQ n 16721.
One single IERO/IO (all branches included) cannot receive more than 40% of the total EC contribution. The country where the IERO is based won’t be counting towards the 40% rule, but it is the IERO itself which is counting (as if the IERO was considered as a separate country, but using the country correction coefficients of their hosts). Example: In a project, if there are European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) German and French branches, the budget requested by both branches will count towards the 40% rule for EMBL’s share, while this specific budget will not count for France’s or Germany’s share of the budget.
The university must be included (either as an associated partner or associated partner linked to a beneficiary) and they must provide a Letter of Commitment even if they only award the degree and have no other task.
No, it is not.
Yes, it is possible as long as it is well described in the proposal. It will be assessed accordingly by the experts during the evaluations. However, this set-up should not be used to circumvent some other rules, like the 40% rule.
MSCA & Citizens (Night)
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.
Postdoctoral Fellowships
Yes. For eligibility purposes, weeks outside the host country are taken into account. The most important thing is to clearly indicate it in the application forms and researcher’s CV (proposal Part A & B2).
To get rid of the warning message blocking the submission, applicants should link the deliverables with WP1.
An official resubmission is a proposal with the same host organisation and researcher. Since the host institution for both GF and EF would be the European partner, a proposal with the same beneficiary would be considered a resubmission.
There are no limitations as to when the researcher can go on maternity leave during the fellowship. An issue might be the employment contract. Some employment contracts stipulate that for paid parental leave the researchers need to have been employed for a set period of time. This doesn’t mean they can’t take the leave, just that it isn’t paid.
It is possible to postpone the actual start date without losing the grant. The initial start date in the contract cannot be further away than the legally allowed date, but it can be further postponed then with an amendment. The researcher needs to contact the project officer and explain the situation.
Staff Exchanges
There are no such templates beyond the standard consortium agreement template, such as the one provided by DESCA (https://www.desca-agreement.eu/desca-model-consortium-agreement/).
For Associated Partners, applicants have to click on the button on the Funding and Tenders Portal and then apply the PIC. For further steps in Form A and description of their role in Part B, applicants should follow instructions in the template.
For associated partners linked to a beneficiary, similar steps apply, but the type of link and description of the activities must be described in Part B.
There are three types of IMPACT in SE:
1. Economic Impact: boosts global & inter-sectoral collaborations
Triggers global inter-sectoral networking & innovation in TC and mobility flows between TC and Europe/ AC Increases active involvement of industry partners Consists on fostering innovation Facilitates technological development Transfers knowledge and deploys solutions It may include the impact the project will generate on participating companies in terms of revenues and profits, employment creation, market share, etc.
2. Social Impact: is a positive contributor to MSCA careers and employment for both male and female researchers
Concentrated on the generation of knowledge Involves R&I in developing, supporting and implementing Union policies Applies innovative solutions in industry (including SMEs), and addresses global challenges
3. Scientific Impact: contributes to fertilize advances across disciplines
Consistent fair representation in all the main research disciplines (majority of RISE projects ≥2 fields of science) Includes in particular the promotion of scientific excellence Creates high-quality new knowledge, skills, training and mobility of researchers
These three impacts are tracked with Key Impact Pathways (KIPs) which are divided as: ·
Scientific impact:
o Creating high-quality new knowledge
o Strengthening human capital in R&I
o Fostering diffusion of knowledge and Open Science ·
Societal Impact:
o Addressing EU policy priorities & global challenges through R&I
o Delivering benefits and impact via R&I missions
o Strengthening the uptake of R&I in society
Economic/ Technological Impact:
o Generating innovation-based growth
o Creating more and better jobs o Leveraging investments in R&I
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.