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.

Regarding header and footer content, there are no strict specifications in the template or the guiding materials. Applicants can include the proposal acronym and action type in the header if they wish. In the same logic, REA would not reject a proposal for not having included the grey part “EU Grants: Application form (HE MSCA PF): V1.1 – 05.05.2022” in the header.

This is a possible option:

“Call: HORIZON-MSCA-2022-PF-01-01 – [MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2022 – EF]               ACRONYM” Or “Call: HORIZON-MSCA-2022-PF-01-01 – [MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2022 – GF]               ACRONYM”

Тhey can list ‘submitted’ and ‘under review’, but they should be ignored by the reviewers. Under review/ submitted always means that they can still be rejected, so they cannot be seen as an accomplishment.

In cases where it is materially impossible to provide an employment contract due to exceptionally difficult circumstances (e.g. situations of war or armed conflict, natural disasters, etc.), an official letter from the employer, duly signed and stamped, stating the start and end dates, and describing the tasks performed by the employee could be accepted instead of the employment contract. In the particular case mentioned, it would be important to highlight that, in addition to the above, the letter should specify and quantify the time spent outside the main research activity so that the time spent not working in research could be deducted from the FTE experience in research.

In 2022 REA is keeping the same approach as for the 2021 call, meaning that the headings cannot be cut. The content in the template needs to be kept as such, without deleting the explanatory text in the parenthesis.

If a person leaves the EU for 12 months or longer, they lose the status of the long-term resident and the count starts from scratch. So if the period spent in the third country was 12 months or more, they are no longer considered long-term residents.

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.