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.

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.

The change would be implemented from the time the allowance is or is no longer eligible according to the documentation. So if the divorce comes into force on 1September, then that is the month the researcher is no longer eligible for the family allowance.

Yes, if the situation of the researcher changes, the Family Allowance can become ineligible. If the relationship is no longer bound through marriage/ other legal agreement, then they are no longer eligible to receive the allowance.

The researcher is obligated to inform of this change of situation if it occurs.

Regarding the estimation of the family allowance budget for a Doctoral Network, there is a footnote (number 37) which starts on page 79 of the MGA for Unit Grants and continues on page 80, which states:

“Average based on the amount for the family allowance set out in the Horizon Europe Work Programme (MSCA Work Programme part) in force at the time of the call (75% of the number of units with family, 25% without).”

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.

Yes. Such an additional contract in the US can be for example to ensure equivalent benefits and social security coverage. Below is an example provided by the European Commission:

Example: A BE university recruits the fellow for the total duration of the action (i.e. provides the main employment contract under the action) and sends him/her to a US university. Continuing the Belgian social security during the stay in the US could be too expensive, so that the beneficiary asks the US partner organisation to conclude an additional employment contract, in order to insure the researcher in the US.

Yes, there has to be a transfer of money from the institution of the return phase to the partner hosting the outgoing phase. Partnership agreement should be signed and should define such a transfer. Country correction coefficient (CCC) of the partner hosting the outgoing phase will be applied. The transfer can include not only living allowance but also mobility and family contribution or transfer of institutional contribution.

No. The researcher should be recruited by the institution of the return phase (the European beneficiary) under an employment contract that covers the entire duration of the grant agreement, including the outgoing phase (36 months total). It is then possible for the partner hosting the outgoing phase (the Third country organisation) to sign an additional employment contract with the researcher for just those 24 months of the outgoing phase, but the main contract will be with the beneficiary in Europe. In the practice different scenarios can occur, e.g. for the time of the outgoing phase (i.e. 24 months) the institution of the return phase will provide unpaid leave to the researcher – i.e. the researcher remains employee of the institution of the return phase but receives no salary from this institution.

It may be possible if the challenges are insurmountable.

Firstly, the fellow and the beneficiary should of course try to solve the issues and also document the process.

But if that fails, they should contact their Project Officer. Best practice would be to already be able to suggest an alternative that would ensure that the project could be implemented according to/or as close as possible to what has been evaluated.

The return phase always lasts 12 months, there are no exceptions. Starting at the European institution counts as outgoing. This means that if the outgoing phase is 24 months, only 21 months will be left after the secondment at the European return host.

This is mainly for statistics purposes.

‘Associated partners’ are entities which participate in the action, but do not sign the grant agreement, without the right to charge costs or claim contributions. They contribute to the implementation of the action, for instance hosting secondments.

Linked third parties can be added as Associated partners linked to a Beneficiary. The type of link and involvement and activities of such entities must be clearly described in the proposal, Part B, and it will be assessed as part of the evaluation.

In the current text of the Work Programme no letter of commitment is required for Associated partners linked to a beneficiary.

There are 3 possible links: [Same group] if the legal entity is under the same direct or indirect control as another legal entity; [Controls] if a legal entity directly or indirectly controls another legal entity; or [Is controlled by] if a legal entity is directly or indirectly controlled by another legal entity.