WHAT ARE THE COMMON WEAKNESSES IN MSCA-PF PROPOSALS?

Here is the list of the most common weaknesses:

• Background on the most recent developments in the field of the research is not presented in enough detail to support the working hypotheses;
• What new/novel research is going to be achieved -compared to the state of the art- is not clearly addressed;
• The "SMART" components of the specific objectives are missing, nor are logically linked to the work packages;

• "Methodology" lacking concrete information on the specific methods to be used. Plus is not clear how expertise and methods from different disciplines will be integrated in the research;
• The training activities are not outlined in concrete terms (e.g. the number and frequency of seminars/courses or workshop participation).
• Some aspects of the proposed research fall outside the researcher's current expertise and will require extensive training; this is not addressed in the proposal;
• The proposal does not fully consider how the researcher’s existing professional experience is relevant to the proposed project;
• The administrative and leadership experience and skills of the researcher appear to be overstated as they are not based on evidence provided in the proposal or their CV;
• The specific measures to enhance the researcher's career beyond the project's duration are not sufficiently described. Plus the measures to enhance the researcher's inter-sectoral career perspectives are not reflected in the proposal;
• The proposal does not address in sufficient detail dissemination of the project results to "application community";
• No adequate estimate of the scientific medium- and long-term impact of the project is addressed;
• Gantt Chart does not display the proposed logical timeline of all work packages/secondments/non-academic placements trainings/tasks/milestones/deliverables - which is absolutely essential for evaluators to understand the project flow!
• The specific risks that could delay the progress of deliverables and the contingency measures or alternative strategies are lacking.
• Insufficiently detailed information is offered on the infrastructure and equipment at the host institution that will support achieving the research objectives.