Binder ERC 2017 - 2018 Sevilla Workshop - SKR PDF

Writing a competitive
ERC Grant
2017 and 2018 call
Contact details
Dr. Mette Skraastad
skraastad@yellowresearch.nl
Workshop ERC Grants
Call 2017
CONTENTS FOLDER
Chapter 1 Yellow Research credentials
Chapter 2 Handout presentation
Chapter 3 Guide ERC Grant 2017 calls

Chapter 1
About Yellow Research
Based on our academic backgrounds and long standing experiences working in and
with universities and university associations in the Netherlands and the US, the
partners of Yellow Research have a thorough understanding of the academic world
and we know what academic excellence means. Our individual and collective track
records allow us to translate projects of top researchers into successful grant
proposals and research projects with industrial partners. Furthermore, we are very
interested in coaching and guidance of young researchers in developing their
research careers
We have accumulated years of practical experience in developing and managing the

EU consortia within successive EU Framework Programmes (FP3 up to H2020). We
have extensive experience in pre-reviewing project proposals for European
Research Council and Marie Sklodowska Curie calls and training applicants.
We have more than 20 years of legal and financial experience. From FP5 up to FP7
we have been advisors to the Dutch government on the development of the Rules for
Participations and the Model Grant Agreements. We have been actively involved in
the development of several Consortium Agreements as well as the DESCA for FP7.
Beside our strong expertise in EU Framework Programmes we have been

successful trainers and consultants in research contracting, writing research and
license agreements, exploitation of intellectual property rights and ethical and legal
aspects of clinical trials and biobanks.
The Training we offer:

We have run more than 800 workshops in the past 11 years of our company
existence. These workshops were organised in Amsterdam, or, as in house trainings.
See the Annex below where a more detailed list is provided of our in house trainings
for FP7. The topics of the workshops are:
H2020 Workshops Other workshops

Writing successful Competitive Proposals for: Career development for PhD students and
- ERC Starting Grant Postdocs
- ERC Consolidator Grant
- ERC Advanced Grant
- Marie Curie ITN
- Marie Curie Individual fellowships
- Marie Curie RISE
- Collaborative projects (Societal Challenges
and Industrial Leadership)
H2020 in general Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorates
ERC Interview Training NWO Vernieuwingsimpuls (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
Drafting & Reviewing Consortium Agreements Drafting and Reviewing R&D agreements
Exploitation and dissemination strategies for EU

projects or in general
Financial Management Clinical research, legal & ethical aspects
Building a consortium for H2020 Running a Technology Transfer Unit

The consultancy we do
Our consultancy services are closely linked to the training we offer or vice versa. As
consultants we offer the following services:
• Project pre-review in conformity with the grant requirements. We do this for a

broad range of projects: ERC Starting Grants, ERC Consolidator Grants, ERC
Advanced Grants, Marie Curie ITN, Marie Curie RISE, Societal Challenges,
Industrial Leadership as well as Clean Sky, IMI, RFCS, Erasmus Mundus Joint
Degrees;
• Project design for Collaborative Research
• Legal services: from consortium agreements to writing biobank regulations
• Business development: protection and exploitation strategies for intellectual

property
Lotte Jaspers. For the past 25 years, Lotte Jaspers has gained broad practical
experience in the issues of technology transfer and obtaining EU grants in particular
ERC, Marie Curie, Infrastructures and Research for SMEs grants.
Her extensive knowledge on drafting consortium agreements, research agreements,

license agreements, MTAs and incorporation agreements for start-up companies has
been valuable experience for her project design and review activities.
In her work for the Dutch government and the Dutch University Association, Lotte
Jaspers gained extensive experience in the legal and financial (full-cost systems)
aspects of EU FP agreements. She has been involved in developing strategies to
improve Rules for Participation, the EU Grant Agreement and the several
Consortium Agreements (FP5, FP6 and the DESCA in FP7). In successive
framework programmes she worked as an expert in several committees and working
groups of the European Commission.
Beside her legal background Lotte has been trained in governance of complex
projects, which has proved to be of great value in analysing management structures
and processes of EU projects.
Dr. Mette Skraastad. For nearly 25 years, Mette Skraastad has gained broad
practical experience business development and technology transfer, advising on EU
programmes and writing EU collaborative grants. In the past 5 years her focus has in
particular been on ERC, H2020 and Centre of Excellence.
Mette has a doctorate degree in life sciences and her interest in science has been
the driving force behind her consultancy and training services. She uses her general
knowledge on science when advising researchers on project engineering and writing.
With a focus on sound science and taking into account the interests of the
researchers, this has led to proposals appreciated by reviewers and with high
success rates. Mette has also pre-reviewed four H2020 proposals in 2015 of which
two were funded by European Commission, providing a 50% success rate.
In addition, Mette has experience as a reviewer for the European Commission

besides supporting the yearly site visits of a charity foundation. This mix of
knowledge and experience is being used by her for training researchers to write
proposals or present their projects in Brussels. In the past decade Mette has run
more than 300 workshops discussing how to write a competitive proposal for FP7
and H202. In 2015 she has run approximately 40 ERC workshops, mainly abroad.
Jet van Dijk has in the last 10 years been involved in the drafting and negotiating of
numerous FP7 and H2020 consortium agreements. As director of Yellow Research
she is involved in co-writing and pre-reviewing EU Framework Collaborative and
ERC proposals and in ERC interview training activitiesis
She is specialised in the legal and ethical issues related to carrying out clinical trials
and the use of human materials and personal (medical) data in research. She has
substantive legal and ethical experience with clinical trials, medical research, and the
use of biological human samples. Jet was for 6 years the legal adviser of the AMC
Medical Research BV, affiliated to the Academic Medical Center. She drafted,
revised and negotiated hundreds of contracts related to (bio)medical research a
substantial amount of regulatory documents for disease registries and biobanks
including the Dutch National Biobanks (String of Pearls Initiatives). At present Jet is
consultant for hospitals, umbrella organisations, NGOs and companies with respect
to research contracting and relating legal issues.
Aya van den Kroonenberg obtained her PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in Boston and was employed at Harvard University as a post-doctoral
fellow. She is a mechanical engineer with a specific interest in applying technical
principles in the medical field.
After her return to Europe at the beginning of 1996 she continued her career at TNO
automotive in Delft, the Netherlands, where she was responsible for the FP4 Brite-
Euram project “Whiplash”. In addition, she was groupleader “biomechanics” and led
a small team of researchers in this capacity she was responsible for the
development of a mathematical model of the human body capable of simulating
human responses during car crashes. In 1999 Aya made a career switch towards
consultancy and was employed by a large consultancy company, PNO. At this
company, she specialized in European grant acquisition and was involved in the
preparation of numerous successful FP5, FP6 and FP7 grant proposals in various
areas including ICT, NMP, Health, KBBE, etc.
The past 10 years Aya has been regularly invited by the European Commission as
expert to evaluate FP5-FP7 research proposals within the NMP and ICT-for-Health
domain.
Chapter 2
3/9/2017
ERC Grants Call

2017 and 2018
Bringing great ideas to life

Based on sound science
Presenters
Dr. Mette Skraastad skraastad@yellowresearch.nl
Aya van den Kroonenberg, PhD vandenkroonenberg@

yellowresearch.nl
Lotte Jaspers jaspers@yellowresearch.nl
Jet van Dijk vandijk@yellowresearch.nl
Programme workshop
 Context ERC programme
 Eligibility criteria
 Evaluation criteria and procedure
 Cover page and abstract: focus on understanding aim
 Part B1 Extended synopsis: focus on what and why
 Part B1 Principal Investigator
 Part B2 Scientific Proposal: focus on how and why
Yellow Research 1
3/9/2017
Relevant documents
 ERC Work Programme 2017
● Funding rates and deadlines
● ERC objectives
● PI profile and benchmark
● Evaluation procedure and criteria: Excellence
• The Scientific Project
• The Principal Investigator
 Guide “Information for applicants” – to be published

● Writing instructions
● Panel structure and keywords
 Proposal template:
● PDF with overview of the online forms and proposal template
● RTF file with proposal template including costing table
Part I: Part II: Part III:

H2020
Excellent Science Industrial Societal Challenges

Base Leadership
Focus Areas
Driven by needs of science by the business agenda by society
ERC LEIT 1. Health, demographic
• Starting Grants • ICT change & wellbeing
• Consolidator Grants • Nanotechnologies 2. Food security, sustainable
• Advanced Grants • Advanced materials agriculture, marine and
• (Synergy Grants) • Biotechnology maritime research & bioec
• Proof of Concept • Advanced manufactu- 3. Secure, clean & efficient
Intervntion schemes
FET ring and processing energy

• FET-Open • Space 4. Smart, green & integrated
• Proactive transport
• Flagships Access to risk finance 5. Climate action, resource
• Debt facility efficiency & raw materials
Marie Curie Actions • Equity facility 6. Inclusive, innovative
• Initial Training • Specific implementation Societies
• Individual Fellow aspects 7. Secure societies
• RISE IIIa) Spreading Excellence &
• Co-funding II – III: Innovation in SME Widening Participation
• Mainstreaming support IIIb) Science with and for
Research SMEs Society
Infrastructure • Specific support
5
ERC objectives
ERC Objectives & Principles
 To provide attractive, long-term funding …to pursue ground-

breaking, high-gain/high-risk research.
 To advance frontiers of knowledge, encouraging:
 In any field of science, engineering and scholarship (except

nuclear energy applications);
 proposals of an inter-disciplinary nature which cross the
boundaries between different fields of research;
 pioneering proposals addressing new and emerging fields of
research; or
 proposals introducing unconventional, innovative approaches
and scientific inventions.
Yellow Research 2
3/9/2017
Eligibility Principal Investigator

 Independent researcher of any age or career stage
 Any age and any nationality
 Submission by PI for hiring an individual team OR PI only (No consortium)
 Minimum time commitment: StG 50%; CoG 40%, 30% AdG;
 At least 50% of the total time is spent in an EU or Associated State
(excluding fieldwork)
 Grant portable within Europe
 Resubmission rules are respected
Starting Consolidator Advanced
PhD >2 to ≤ 7 (MD 4-9) PhD >7 to ≤ 12 (MD 9-14) Active research record
years prior to 1st Jan 2018 years prior to 1st Jan 2018
At least one important publ. At least several important publ. At least 10 important publ. or 3
monographs in past 10 years
1.5 MEUR + 0.5 M extra* 2.0 MEUR + 0.75 M extra* 2.5 MEUR + 1.0 M extra*
*When moving into Europe as PI OR/AND purchase of major equipment
OR/AND access to large facilities
Eligibility Principal Investigator

Bench mark
 StG ≥ 1 important publ. as main author or without PhD supervisor
 CoG several important publ. as main author or without PhD superv.
 AdG benchmark in the past 10 years
● 10 papers as main author in major journals or conferences
● Or 3 monographs
Additional that may be considered, if applicable
● 5 granted patents
● 10 invited presentations at conferences and advanced schools
● 3 research expeditions
● Organisation of 3 conferences or congresses
● Prizes,awards, academic memberships or artefacts
● Contribution to career of outstanding researchers
● Leadership in industrial innovation or design
ERC Host
ERC institute
Host Institutecommitment
commitment
The host institute must ensure that the Principal Investigator is able to:
 apply for funding independently;

 manage the research and the funding for the project and make
appropriate resource allocation decisions;
 publish independently as senior author and include as co-authors
only those who have contributed substantially to the reported work;
 supervise the work of the team members, including research
students, doctoral students or others;
 have access to appropriate space and facilities for conducting the
research.
See page 10 of the ERC Work Programme 2017
Yellow Research 3
3/9/2017
10
Eligibility Host institute

The host institute must :
 Engage the PI for at least the duration of the project;

 Must be established in EU or Associated State;
 Be the only participating entity, but
● In case of scientific added value team members may be hosted by other
legal entities worldwide. For legal entities outside EU or Associated
Countries the participation should be deemed essential.
 Project must be implemented in EU or Associated State, but
● Project field work & research activities can be conducted elsewhere
when justified
See page 17 of the ERC Work Programme 2017
11
Terms used in Information for Applicants

 Frontier research: basic and applied research
 Scientist, engineer, scholar
 Eligibility PI is counted from 1st of January 2017
 Eligibility StG and CoG:
● PhD equivalent degree. MD is in most cases not equivalent
● PhD date – national rules apply: certificate in EU language or
Latin or translated into English
 Grants: Starting, Consolidator, Advanced, (Synergy from 2018
call)
 Host Institution
 Portability
 Career breaks, separate slide on eligibility period
12
Yellow Research 4
3/9/2017
Eligibility period: Extension

WP 2017: p16,17 + P29
StG and CoG 2017 AG 2017

Before or after PhD award Before or during 10 year track
record
Mothers 1,5 year per child minimum 1,5 year per child
or ‘actual leave taken’
Fathers Actual leave Actual leave
• part-time leave for child care is eligible
 Other breaks during PhD window or 10 year (AdG) record are eligible for:
● long term sickness provided > 90 days: PI, parent, sib, spouse and/or child;
● clinical training; or
● national services.
 Evidence: PDF of birth certificate of child and/or other ’proofing documents’.

 No translation is required if provided in 1 of the 23 EU official languages,
otherwise also provide certified translation into English.
13
ERC call 2017: Structure and Budget

PI level Starting Consolidators Advanced
Publication 19 July ’16 20 Oct ’16 16 May ’17

Call ’17
Deadlines ‘17 18 Oct ’16 9 Feb ’17 31 Aug ’17
Brussels time 17:00 17:00 17:00
3 Domains 25 panels
Keywords 8-21 keywords per panel
Budget ±605M StG ±575M CoG ±567M AdG

(415) (320) (245 )
Results STEP 1 = +5 months (all Grants)
STEP 2 = +4 additional months StG/CoG/SyG
STEP 2 = +2 additional months AdG
14
The ERC panels

1. Mathematics 1. Individuals, Markets and Organisations
2. Fundamental Constituents of Matter 2. Institutions, Values Environments & Space
3. Condensed Matter Physics 3. The Social World, Diversity, Population
PE: 10 panels
SH: 6 panels
4. Physical and Analytical Chemical Sciences 4. The Human Mind and its Complexity
5. Synthetic Chemistry and Materials 5. Cultures and Cultural Production
6. Computer Science and Informatics 6. The Study of the Human Past
7. Systems and Communication Engineering
8. Products and Processes Engineering
2016: serious re-allocation of
9. Universe Sciences keywords to panels in SH
10. Earth System Science
1. Molecular and Structural Biology and Biochemistry
2. Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology
LS: 9 panels
3. Cellular and Developmental Biology

4. Physiology, Pathophysiology and Endocrinology
5. Neurosciences and Neural Disorders
6. Immunity and Infection
7. Diagnostic tools, Therapies and Public Health
8. Evolutionary, Population and Environmental Biology
9. Applied life sciences and Non-Medical Biotechnology
15
Yellow Research 5
3/9/2017
A1 – form: Panels and Keywords

Step 1: Initial registration: Primary and/or secondary panel
Step 2: Initial registration: ERC Keyword 1: Mandatory link to primary panel
Step 3: Characterizing the subject of the proposal
Step 4: Indicating Scope & Selecting Remote Reviewers
16
Choosing the right panel
 Each keyword represents a research area

 Each panel member represents 2 to 3 keywords
 Critical assessment of scientific impact on research area
and beyond
● The challenge determines area(s) of impact, not PI’s background
● Impact on different areas: Identify the area that is most
fundamentally impacted by the challenge.
 The secondary panel -> try to avoid, but use when
● Lack of competence in primary panel for assessing methodology
17
Evaluation Procedure
Role of
individual
reviewer
and panel
18
Yellow Research 6
3/9/2017
ERC Proposal structure

A4, Times New Roman/Arial or similar, Font Size 11, Single,
Margins 2 cm side and 1,5 cm bottom. 10 MB. Page limits.
Check IfA CoG 2017, p25-28
PART A – online forms PART B1 – submitted as .pdf

Cover page with summary 1 p.
A1 Proposal info, abstract Section 1 Research Proposal
plus declarations 1a Extended Synopsis 5 p.
A2 Host institution plus PI info 1a References – no page limit
A3 Budget 1b CV 2 p.
A4 Ethics Issues Table Appendix “Funding ID” - no page limit
A5 Call specific information 1c Early Achievements or 10 year TR 2 p.
Annexes – submitted as .pdf PART B2 – submitted as .pdf

- Host Institute Letter Section 2 Scientific proposal
- StG and CoG: PhD certificate 2a S-o-t-A + objectives
- Proof of extension 2b Methodology
- If applicable Ethics Issues 2c Resources 15 p.
documents References – no page limit
19 19
Evaluation Procedure
Step 1 Step 2
B-forms
Proposal – B1 Proposal – B1+B2
PDF’s
PART B1 PART B1
PART B1
PART B2 PART B2
B1a: Extended
Synopsis
Panel Evaluation Panel & External Evaluation
B1b-c: Principal - Indiv. Assessments and - Indiv. Assessments and
Investigator scores (by 3-4 members) scores
- PANEL MEETINGS - Extra 2 to 7 referees
PART B2 - Ranking by panel - StG/CoG: Interview
Scientific - Send to step 2 (2-3x sessions
Proposal times budget), or - PANEL MEETINGS
rejected - Final ranking and comm.
Outcome: A , B or C A’s or B
Exclusion of up to 3 individual reviewers is possible eg scientific rivalry
20
How are external referees selected?

Based on:
 Network of the panel members
 Free keywords used by you in A forms
 State of the art description in Extended Synopsis
 Former collaborations mentioned in CV part (B1)
 “Googling” the topic and key methodologies
21
Yellow Research 7
3/9/2017
Conflict of Interest
 involved in the preparation of the proposal

 benefit directly or indirectly if the proposal is accepted
 close family or personal relationship with any person representing
host institution or person submitting to their panel
 management of host institution
 employed or (sub)contracted by host institution
 member Advisory Group H2020 Work programmes
 National Contact Point, Enterprise Europe Network
 member of a Programme Committee.
 close family ties / personal relationship with PI
 scientific collaboration incl. rivalry/hostility with PI last 5 years
 mentor/mentee relationship
 submitted a proposal as PI/ team member under the same call
22
Outcome of Evaluation
Step 1: Part B1 Step 2: Part B1 & B2

B1a: Extended Synopsis B1b-c: Principal Investigator
B1b-c: Principal Investigator B2: Scientific Proposal
Outcome evaluation step 1: Outcome evaluation step 2:
A = Sufficient quality => step 2 A = Sufficient quality:

(2 to 3 times reserved budget) - Main listed
- Reserve list - fundable proposals, depending
on extra funding
B = High quality but not sufficient
- Sufficient quality but no funding
10% ranking slices starting from the cut-off point
B = Not meeting excellence

C = Not sufficient quality
top and bottom % position – no ranking
A with ranking range. B no ranking.
23 23
First Eligible call

RESTRICTIONS 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
FOR H2020 2015
RESUBMISSION Step 1 - B
Step 1 - C
X
X
√
X √
• Resubmission per PI only Step 2 - A √
when threshold is passed /
Step 2 - B √
Synergy no restriction
Breach Integity X X
• Only 1 proposal is eligible per H2020 2016
work program in call 2017
Step 1 - B X √
• Only 1 ERC grant per PI
Step 1 - C X X √
active
Step 2 - A √
• ERC laureates may apply Step 2 - B √
again if ERC grant expires
Breach Integity X
within 2 years after deadline
H2020 2017
• a panel member to a call in
Step 1 - B X √
2017 or 2015 can not submit
in 2017 for the same type of Step 1 - C X X √
grant Step 2 - A √
Step 2 - B √
24
Yellow Research 8
3/9/2017
Evaluation criteria
Before you start writing
Principal Investigator (2017 call)

ERC workprogramme
Scientific Excellence: Intellectual capacity, creativity and Commitment
1. To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to propose and conduct
ground-breaking research?
2. To what extent does the PI provide evidence of creative independent
thinking?
3. To what extent have the achievements of the PI typically gone beyond the
state-of-the-art?
AG To what extent has the PI demonstrated sound leadership in the training
and advancement of young scientists?
4. To what extent does the PI demonstrate the level of commitment to the
project necessary for its execution and the willingness to devote a
significant amount of time to the project. Min 50% (StG), 40% (CoG), 30%
(AG) of the total working time on it and min 50% in an EU Member State or
Associated Country) (based on the full Scientific Proposal).
Outstanding (4) Excellent (3) Very good (2) Non-competitive (1)
Source: ERC26 WP 2017, p. 33
Research Project (call 2017)

ERC WP 2017, p32
Scientific Excellence: Ground-breaking nature, Ambition and Feasibility
Ground-breaking nature and potential impact of the research project
1. To what extent does the proposed research address important challenges?
2. To what extent are the objectives ambitious and beyond S-o-t-A
(e.g. novel concepts & approaches or development across disciplines)?
3. To what extent is the proposed research high-risk / high-gain?
Scientific Approach
4. To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible bearing in mind that
the proposed research is high-risk / high-gain (based on the Extended Synopsis).
5. To what extent is the proposed research methodology appropriate to achieve
the goals of the project (based on the full Scientific Proposal)
6. To what extent does the proposal involve the development of novel
methodology? (based on the full Scientific Proposal)
7. To what extent are the proposed timescales and resources necessary and
properly justified? (based on the full Scientific Proposal)
27
Yellow Research 9
3/9/2017
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Excellence is the sole
criterion in conjunction with:
Project: PI:
Groundbreaking Intellectual
nature, Ambition capacity, creativity
and Feasibility and commitment
Reviewers take into account size of research field and publications customs
28
B1 Cover Page
A forms - Abstract
B1 Cover Page = Online Abstract

Format Instructions
• Title: Max 200 characters (
• Acronym/short title: Max 20 characters
• Name PI
• Host Institute
• Duration Proposal duration in months (budget pro rata)
Summary: (2000 characters)
Must be identical to abstract from Part A
The abstract (summary) should, at a glance, provide the reader with a clear
understanding of the objectives of the research proposal and how they will be
achieved.
The abstract will be used as the short description of your research proposal in the
evaluation process and in communications to contact in particular the potential
remote referees. It must therefore be short and precise and should not contain
confidential information
Cross Panel Box: (1000 characters) Explanation/justification of cross-panel or cross
domain nature, if a secondary panel is indicated in the online proposal submission forms
30
Yellow Research 10
3/9/2017
B1 Cover Page
Format YR tips
• Title: Reflecting research challenge/topic and approach
• Acronym/ short Consider a short title reflecting the content of your

title: proposal
• Duration Most projects 60 months. Exceptions mainly SH panel
• Summary Consider challenge, its importance, the overall aim,

(2000 characters) project idea/solution, scientific approach, main
outputs/results and impact.
Remember to address what is novel.
Check abstracts of awarded ERC grants for inspiration.
Use the page and put in the key picture which is a
graphical summary of your proposal.
31
B1 – Cover Page
Cross – panel or cross – domain
Format Tips
Interdisciplinary In case the primary panel is not capable to understand
Cross panel Box your project to full extend according to you.
Based on your selected primary keyword and provided

abstract the project is most likely assigned to a primary
panel.
Ensure that the core abstract fits the interests and scope
of your primary panel.
Explain why this proposal:
• Creates a scientific impact on the primary panel;
• Why the cross panel keywords indicate methods
instrumental to achieve the objectives but not
necessary will generate an impact on the scope of the
secondary panel
• OR: why specific parts of the B1 part can also be
reviewed by a secondary panel in step 1.
32
A1 Abstract – see cover page slides

A1 Abstract is identical to B1 summary, however:
It can not contain confidential information
Dual purpose, yet one text:
- Purpose of B1 Cover page: First impression (reviewer)
- Purpose of A1 Abstract: Tempting selected external

referees to review your proposal for free.
 External reviewers must be able to assess the critical

aspects of the proposed concept and methodology to decide
if they can review the proposal
33
Yellow Research 11
3/9/2017
A1 – form: Panels and Keywords

Panel, ERC Keyword and Free Keywords
Step 1: initial registration:
 Primary review panel and – if needed a secondary review panel
 ERC Keyword 1: Mandatory, linking your proposal to a primary
panel with the right expertise and knowledge
Step 2: linking your project

 ERC Keywords 2, 3, 4: Optional, linking your proposal to the same
or another panel (cross panel or domain)
Step 3: indicating required review expertise

 Free Keywords: Free text up to 200 characters characterising your
proposal
 Free Keywords are used to identify best referees from panel as well
as external referees. Check whether these keyword lead to the right
type of referees
34
Part B1, section B1a

The Extended Synopsis



36
36
Yellow Research 12
3/9/2017
Bringing together ERC objectives

and evalution criteria
 ERC objectives
● Crossing boundaries between different disciplines;
● Pioneering proposals addressing new and emerging fields; or
● Proposals introducing unconventional, innovative approaches
and scientific inventions.
 ERC evaluation criteria

● Ground-breaking nature and potential impact: important
challenges, ambitious objectives leading to novel concept,
approaches and development across disciplines, high gain/high
risk balance
● Scientific approach: feasibility, appropriate methodology,
development of novel methodology, timescales and budget
37
37
B1a - Extended Synopsis
Writing instructions  no predefined sub headings!

Concise presentation of the scientific proposal
with particular attention to its ground-breaking nature of the research

project and the feasibility of the outlined scientific approach.
Describe the proposed work in the context of the state of the art
References to literature must be included but do NOT count to the
page limit. References should include references to own work
It is important that this extended synopsis contains all relevant
information including the feasibility of the scientific proposal since the
panel will only evaluate Part B1 in step 1.
38
Evaluation criteria versus writing instructions

Ground-breaking nature, Ambition and Feasibility
3. To what extent is the proposed research high risk / high gain?
4. To what extent if the scientific approach feasible?
 Concise presentation of the scientific proposal

 with particular attention to its ground-breaking nature of
the research project and the feasibility of the outlined
scientific approach.
 Describe the proposed work in the context of the state of
the art. References to literature must be included but do
NOT count to the page limit.
39
Yellow Research 13
3/9/2017
Before you start writing: identify a challenge
Ambition researcher
concept
Scope and focus: New knowledge and change:
development
project objectives Generalisation and impact
generation of
project ideas
Opportunity for funding
Project development Proposal writing
40
Steps for developing your project
1. What are the main Challenges / research questions
2. Link challenge to project idea/concept/solution
3. Objectives: focus and scope
4. State of the art: justification for proposed research
5. Scientific approach
6. Evidence for feasibility
7. Potential results/output/milestones
8. Impact
41
41
Step 1 – To what extent addressing an

Important challenge or big research question
 Major issue in science, industry or society (impact)
 Needs to be resolved now
 Only few research groups doing the same: frontier
 Focus on key element
 Clever idea/solution to address this and force a
breakthrough – exciting the reader /surprise element
 Outputs/results leading to conceptual change
 Opening up new research perspectives for yourself,
researchers in your field and beyond – inspiring the
reader
42
42
Yellow Research 14
3/9/2017
Step 1 - Research Question
 Conceptual (theoretical) questions:

● What-should-we-think?
● So “What” is focused on advancing our understanding
 Applied Questions:
● What-must-know-before-we-can-do?
● So “What” is focused on solving The Problem: “What” is the step
towards solving it
● Keep asking in a re-iterative way: So-what? if you do and Why
will this impact on the applied field and not just your research
area?
 Practical Questions (ERC???)

● What-should-we-do?
● Using or combining existing knowledge – not fitting ERC
43
Step 1 - Identify important challenges

 Describe your research vision for the future

 What Important Challenge(s)/Big Research Question(s)?
 What problem(s)/challenge(s)/issues?
 To what extent are you able to address the challenge(s)?
 Explain: Why is this challenge relevant and/or important
for your research field and adjacent research fields?
 Why now and/or urgent?
WHAT AND WHY
44
Step 2 – Project idea and challenge

 What is a “idea” or “concept” in your field?
● Project idea
● Abstract meaning of a unit ? Being a theoretical concept?
● Conjecture? Tool?
● Indicator or parameter?
● Paradigm?
● Hypothesis?
● Conceptual framework?
● Theoretical framework?
● Methodological and/or analytical framework
 Not every concept is fitting ERC objectives

● Leading to a conceptual change opening up new research
opportunites => insight, understanding, knowledge
45
Yellow Research 15
3/9/2017
Step 2 - Capture challenge and solution

“When describing the envisaged research it should be indicated how
and why the proposed work is important for the field, and what impact
it will have if successful, such as how it may open up new horizons or
opportunities for science, technology or scholarship”
Impact
Theoretical
PI
How can you convey the main

message of your project?
Experimental
46
Step 3 - Define project objectives

“Specify clearly the objectives of the proposal, in the
context of the SotA in the field”
 Define an overarching aim (coherence)

 Define specific objectives, which define focus and scope
 Explain why these objectives are ambitious in view of the
state-of-the-art
 Describe state-of-the-art, also related to the objectives
 What (part of) objective is novel or different and why?
 Explain why these objectives are relevant and why now?
 Distinguish between important outcomes and the
contribution to the ultimate gain
47
Step 4 – Address state-of-the-art

“Specify clearly the objectives of the proposal, in the
context of the SotA in the field”
 Place the project in the larger research landscape
 Explain why these objectives in view of the SotA
 Explain the key issues, definitions
 Explain what has been achieved and is going on

(referring to colleagues, competitors, ERC grants, etc)
 Show that you are well informed, understand the issues

and have the right expertise and knowledge
48
Yellow Research 16
3/9/2017
Step 5 - Specify ground breaking nature

(is it fitting ERC?)
 Try to capture the concept in wording and visually

 Describe and explain the concept and approach
 What is novel/unconventional in ”concept” ?
 Is scientific approach cutting edge and/or novel?
 What evidence supports feasibility of concept and
approach?
 Is this project exciting?
 Is there a major impact on ”science”?
49
Step 6 – Feasibility of scientific approach

What in B1 and what in B2 part
 Main activities
 Main methodologies
 Key evidence for being able to draw conclusions:
● Appropriate methological approach
● Sufficient and correct data
● Right parameter
● Capable of analysing data
● Capable of interpreting data
● Clear conclusions
● Team
● Timescales
50
Step 7 – Potential output/results/milestones
 Output
 Results
 New knowledge
 Milestones
 To what extent addressing important challenge?
 To what extent groundbreaking?
 To what extent realistic?
51
Yellow Research 17
3/9/2017
Step 8 - Impact by opening up new horizons or

opportunities for science, technology
or scholarship
What is it what
Utility we must know
before we can
do?
Other fields
Why is well-
worth doing?
How will it help

Research area others understand:
conceptual change
Your research Challenge X

and concept Y
52
Groundbreaking potential
a major leap forward
 New or emerging field

 New direction/approach of research
 An original idea
 Innovative understanding, insight, technology,
equipment, method and/or data etc.
 Challenging the current theory (not going against it) or
contradicting the majority opinion
 Addressing the community’s blind spot or “serendipity”
finding
 Using a new development
 Combining different disciplines/methodologies from
another field to address a topic
 No ongoing or incremental research
53
Key questions for selecting proposals
 Why this project?

● What is the challenge or big research question?
● Why relevant?
● Is scientific approach feasible?
● What will be the impact on research?
 Why now?
 Why you?
 In view of ERC objectives and evaluation criteria
54
Yellow Research 18
3/9/2017
What are panels looking for ?

Focused projects are Open projects are rejected
preferred
 Coherent project  No coherence
 An overarching aim /  Truly explorative, fishing
research question  Only research questions
 Clear concept without objectives
 Hypothesis driven  Collecting “stamps” or
 Insight: structural, information
mechanistic, empirical etc.
 No rationale for choices
 Rationale behind concept made
and approach
What is selected
55 by the panel ?
Examples
3. To what extent is the proposed research high gain?
Create new knowledge/insight leading to change
 New concept or indicator

 New conceptual or theoretical framework
 New tool, technology, method, device
 New analytical or methodological framework
 Opening up new research opportunities

 Resolving issues in society, industry
 In long term new products or processes
56
B1 part – scientific approach (1-2 pages)

4. To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible bearing in mind
that the proposed research is high risk/high gain (Extended Synopsis).
 Explain strategy for scientific approach and why
 Describe main activities and key output/milestone
 Describe main methodologies
 Provide key evidence for feasibility
 Explain why feasible
 Intertwine information on why you
 Ask colleagues to read the B1 part
57
Yellow Research 19
3/9/2017
How to write the B1 part?
58
Remember: Panel members review B1 part

in step 1
 3-4 panel members
 Not having your knowledge and expertise
 Knowing the basics
 Need to understand the main issue(s) and solution(s)
 Being able to explain to the rest of the panel in Brussels
 Information easily found
 Assess the quality of research proposed
 Based on sound science
 Advice: avoid ambuigity
59
59
B1a Extended Synopsis:

Start with the core of the Project
– no matter what the instructions are
Scientific Excellence:
Ground-breaking nature and potential impact of the research
project
1. Important challenges?
What & 2. objectives ambitious incl. novel concepts & approaches

Why or development across disciplines?
3. High-risk / high-gain?
What, Scientific Approach
Why & 4. Scientific approach feasible.
How
Tip: Explain how your project may open up new horizons or

opportunities for research or what will be the impact on the
different research fields (new knowledge and applications)
60
Yellow Research 20
3/9/2017
What are the key elements in B1a?

 Original and creative research, not being main stream
 Focus on urgent and big scientific, engineering or
scholarly challenges
● PE panels eg novel theory, material, equipment, technology etc
● All panels: novel insight/understanding
 Sound concept leading to a conceptual change
 Approach: novel with justification of rationale
 Preliminary evidence
 Impact beyond the frontiers of your field: paradigm shift
⇒ Quality of B1 is seen by reviewers as good indication of
the quality of B2
61
Create a Storyboard
 No pre-defined headings
 A strategy
● Explain on the first pages the background, the big challenge or
research question, why important, your project idea / concept and
objectives and to what extent you are addressing the challenge
● Explain your contribution to science and how your project differs from
current research and your contribution and what others do
● Describe main activities and methods/tools/technologies used
● Address risks/feasibility/credibility and why you
● Address main results and potential impact of your project, including
conceptual change
 Provide data, figures etc.

 Do not use jargon
 Use white space and mark key information
 Do not refer to B2
62
Most important elements of the B1 part

 Cover page summary: elements, sentences, words
 Graphical summary in the project
 Opening sentence
 Key sentence(s) of the proposal are marked
 First page of the Extended Synopsis
 Well defined objectives and research questions
 Consider fast reader and slow reader (bold, summary,
boxes, paragrahs etc)
 Recapturing the project proposal in a few sentences
 Address why you
 Anything else?
63
63
Yellow Research 21
3/9/2017
Personalise the proposal and consider to:
 Structure the proposal to convey your message

 Guide the reader through the proposal and wrap up
 Use bold, text boxes etc. for main messages
 Use headings for guidance and space for pauses
 Use colours and change lay-out
 Add figures and preliminary data
 Be creative with words and sentences
 Add your story (vision, dream, contributions, etc.)
 To rewrite the proposal for the audience
 Write convincing and check wording creating a doubt
such as may, seem, could, might be etc
64
64
Unforgettable proposal
Intriguing, convincing and inspiring
 Surprise element: new research field, novel invention
 Paradigm shift
 Intriguing the reader from page 1
 Your best written proposal
 Compelling evidence and/or argumentation
 Based on sound science and not too much wishful
thinking
 Passionate and convincing writing style
 Inspiring: even the critical reader is positive
 Readable and understandable for the whole panel
 Take a step back and explain or conclude
 No ambiquity in B1 part
65
65
Part B1 Section B1b and B1c

The Principal Investigator
Yellow Research 22
3/9/2017
Page limit B1 part

Check IfA CoG 2017 p24-27
Format Part B1 10 pages ++

• Cover page with summary 1 page
• 1a - Extended Synopsis 5 pages
• 1a - References No page limit
• 1b - CV (suggested format) 2 pages
• Funding ID (mandatory format) No page limit
• 1c - Early achiev. or 10 year track-record 2 pages
IfA 2017: In fairness to all applicants, the page limits below

will be applied strictly. Only the material that is presented
within these limits will be evaluated (peer reviewers will only be
asked to read the material presented within the page limits, and
will be under no obligation to read beyond them).
67
B1: Evaluation Criteria and Format

Scientific Excellence PI
•Intellectual capacity and creativity
&
•Commitment of PI
Format B1
Format B2
IfA 2017, p25-26
IfA 2017, p26-27
Research Project
Scientific proposal:
1a - Extended synopsis
2a S-o-t-A + objectives
1a - References
2b Methodology
1b - CV plus Funding ID
2c Resources
1c –Track record
68
Is the proposed project fitting you?

The evaluator needs to establish feasibility, therefore address
 Your experience and track record: Recognised? Done preliminary
work? Published?
● Describe your experience with handling the research question or
challenge in PI part and methodology and resources section
● Describe your contribution to the state of the art in Extended Synopsis

and B2 part and add references to your work
 Context and environment: experience team members, intellectual

and technological research environment, methodology, method, tool,
technology, equipment, sources, data etc.
● Describe what is up and running of (novel) methods etc.
 How can your network of experts be helpful?
69
Yellow Research 23
3/9/2017
Principal Investigator (2017 call):

Scientific Excellence: Intellectual capacity and creativity
1. To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to propose and conduct
ground-breaking research?.
2. To what extent does the PI provide evidence of creative independent
thinking?
3. To what extent have the achievements of the PI typically gone beyond the
state-of-the-art?
AG To what extent as the PI demonstrated sound leadership in the training and
advancement of young scientists?
4. To what extent does the PI demonstrate the level of commitment to the
project necessary for its execution and the willingness to devote a
significant amount of time to the project. Min 50% (StG), 40% (CoG) or
(30% AG) of the total working time on it and min 50% in an EU Member
State or Associated Country) (based on the full Scientific Proposal).
Outstanding (4) Excellent (3) Very good (2) Non-competitive (1)
70
Evaluation Criteria: Intellectual Capacity & Creativity

record of research, collaborations, project conception,
supervision of students and publications
 CV with a template which can be modified – 2 pages
 Funding ID with a mandatory format for overview

ongoing and submitted grants and funding – no page
limit
 Track Record – 2 pages

● With 5 (StG) or 10 (CoG / AdG) selected “papers”
● Research monographs or any translation
● Granted Patents
● Invited presentations
● Prizes/Awards/Academy memberships
● Other evidence, see AdG template
71
B1b – ERC CV format I

Instructions and tips by YR
General Format: period, name of University /Institution, country
It may be modified as necessary and appropriate
 Name, researcher ID, ORCID, nationality, date of birth and URL link to
website
 Education
● PhD and Master degree and name PhD supervisor
● Add honour or distinction?
● StG and CoG: Add title of thesis, date?
 Current Position(s)
● Any other information to be added? Invited guest positions?
 Previous positions:
● Position held
● Short visits?
● Any other information to be added?
72
Yellow Research 24
3/9/2017
B1b – ERC CV format II

Instructions and tips
 Fellowships (including declined?)
● Name of university (etc.), Scholarship from whom
 Supervision (or in Track Record?)
● Number of PhD students, Master students and Postdocs
● Names ?
● StG / CoG: Add capacity to inspire them to pursue an academic career?
 Teaching (examples of novel curriculum):
● Teaching position, topic, university (etc.)
● Add teaching hours, level, frequency, contribution, number of students?
 Organisation of scientific meetings (or in Track Record?)
● Specify role, name and type of event, number of participants.
● Add name of committee, how frequent, initiator, chair of a session etc.?
 Institutional responsibilities:
● Faculty member, Graduate Student Advisor, Member of the Faculty
Committee, Organizer of internal seminar, Member of a Committee
73
B1b – ERC CV format III

Instructions and tips
 Commissions of trust:
● Scientific Advisory Board, Review Board, Review panel member,
Editorial Board, Reviewer, Scientific Evaluation, Evaluator
● Add guest editor, name of journal?
● Add for which journal or funding agency reviewing and how frequent?
 Memberships of scientific societies
● Member, Research Network "Name of Research Network", Associated
Member, Funding Member
● Add invited, elected or nominated?
 Major Collaborations:
● Name of collaborators and topic, university
● Add selection of international well-known groups/researchers?
● Add joint publications: number or/and title?
 Career breaks: reason and duration
74
B1b – New CV format IV

Additional tips for narrative information
● Proof of proposing ground-breaking research: attracting funding
or initiating novel research lines
● Proof of conducting ground-breaking research: supervision in CV
part, team leader, coordinator…
● Proof of creative thinking: eg new research line, new
technology/method or bringing together disciplines
● Proof of scientific achievements: description major achievements
● AdG: Leadership in supervision and guidance: where are the

former PhD students and postdocs working now?
● International visibility and positions of trust: invited lectures and
member of editorial boards and review panels
● List or also narrative?
75
Yellow Research 25
3/9/2017
Appendix: Funding ID
mandatory info Ongoing & Submitted
Project Funding source Amount Period Role PI Relation to
title (Euros) current ERC
proposal*
• National or • For PI, Any relation to:
international what coordinator, - Concept
• Individual or • You co-applicant, - Objectives
collaboration • PhD co-writer, - Approach or
• Research student partner Methodology
Council Analysing the - Proof ?
• Success rate? data and Complementary
writing ...... Synergestic
Adding footnotes to table with explanations?

Explain deviation from and relation with former research
Add a list with your important past funding to table “grant applications” or footnote?
* Funding ID has been used in call 2015 to check your scientific integrity; Not listing or
indicating relations casts doubt on scientific integrity
76
B1c – Track Record Publications I

Publications in major international multi-disciplinary / leading
peer-reviewed journals /conference proceedings / monographs
Insert somewhere in PI part a paragraph with a summary
 Total number of publications: regular papers in journals, (invited)

reviews, conference proceedings, chapters in books, edited books
 StG/CoG: How many publications without your PhD supervisor or as
main author? How to demonstrate independency?
 Authorship analysis: Number of 1st / single / last / corresponding
author if you are on most papers main author
 Scholars: monographs, translations, contracts, publishing house
 Total citations, H-index or G-index plus source of data
 Number of papers with High IF, top ranked journals or quartile
 If needed, explain the regular publication procedures in your field
77
B1c – Track Record Publications II

5 (StG) or 10 (CoG/AdG) representative publications, in major international
multi-disciplinary / leading peer-reviewed journals /conferences proceedings /
(monographs), highlight those originating from your group
Per Listed Publication:
1. Select 5 (StG) 10 (CoG/AdG) representative publications which are

highlighted:
 Explanation on ground-breaking contribution
 Explanation on your contribution: idea, supervision, work, analysis,
writing
 Indication of Intellectual leadership:
o Mark your authorship position: 1st / single / corresponding / last
author
o Mark papers without your supervisor
 International recognition:
o Add citations per paper, without self-citations / (invited) reviews / IF
(which year or average)/ journal ranking / cover page / editorials /
highlighted in other journals / downloads / Faculty of 1000 list (LS)...
o SSH: publisher, translations, book prizes, best reviews (In
humanities also pay attention to the number of pages)
78
Yellow Research 26
3/9/2017
B1c – Track Record Publications III

5 (StG) or 10 (CoG/AdG) representative publications, in major international
multi-disciplinary / leading peer-reviewed journals /conferences proceedings /
(monographs), highlight those withoutorginating from your group
Per Listed Publication:
In case of peer reviewed conference proceedings, add:
 Type of conferences:
 International or regional conference?
 Prestigious? Top tier? Success rate?
 Part of an annual event; one time involvement or recurrent?
79
B1c – Track Record: Publications IV

Type of publications
What is the reviewer looking for?
 Significant contributions to knowledge

● Insight and understanding
● New and emerging research field
● Coining new concept
● Relevance and impact
● Descriptive ?
● Combining existing knowledge ?
 Contribution to methodology: new approach or method
 Opinion or review as extra examples?
● Invited
● New field
 Showing leadership? Orginating from your group?
80
80
B1c – Track record: Publications IV

I or PI have/has published in total 129 papers of which 79 in the past 10 years:
76 peer-reviewed articles in major international journals with 2435 citations
(excluding self citations) yielding an H-index of 33 (also excluding self-
citations). Source Web of Science. The publications include 7 Physical Review
Letters, 1 Nature, 2 Nature Physics, 2 Nano Letters, and 3 Applied Physics
Letters articles. On 69 papers PI is main senior author.
D. Hammer and D. Stimmer. Exponential Lie algebra. J. London Math. Soc. (2)
69.2 (2005), 160–180. [54 citations].
D. Hammer and D. Stimmer. An artificial selfish gene. 2012, Nature 486 (7401):
160–164. IF 36, F1000.com/10315931 NC, coverpage and highlighted in Science.
The first simulation model for ….
D. Stimmer. The value of green politics. 2009 Oxford University Press. 2nd edition
2012. Highlighted in .. Translated into Spanish in 2011.
Any other information about “papers” to demonstrate your past achievements?
81
Yellow Research 27
3/9/2017
B1c – Track Record other benchmark info

 Research monographs and any translation thereof
 number of pages, language and translations, curriculum, publ. house
 Granted Patents.
 Tip: include applications / other registered IPRs (granted and applied)
and their use; when open source software mention number of downloads
 Invited presentations
 see separate slide
 Prizes, Awards, Academy memberships

 National and international
 AdG: Leading research expeditions / Organising international
conferences / Contribution to early career of excellent researchers /
Leadership industrial innovation or design
82
B1c – Track Record Invited presentations

 Type of presentations:
● Keynote lecture, plenary lecture, parallel session, satellite workshops
● Level of prestige?
● Invitation based on personal invitation letter
 Other types of presentations

● International advanced schools for PhD or postdocs focusing on training
and education
● Add national or regional conferences and/or workshops ?
● Add seminars/colloquia at universities, only prestigious?
Personal invitations: Starters – nice; Consolidators must have some already,

Advanced must have
83
Why you?
Did you explain explicitly in PI part to the reader why you?

Based on:
 Intellectual capacity and creativity in the past
● First, pioneering....
● Novel, ground breaking.....
● Experience and knowledge...
● Methodology, technology, data......
● Expertise and knowledge of team, environment
● Network
 Credibility of PI: topic, challenge, methodology etc
84
84
Yellow Research 28
3/9/2017
Bibliometrics AG 2008 / StG-CoG 2012

Sources: Dr. Zyczkowski AG and Pecha StG-CoG
Physical Sciences & Engineering Papers AdG StG/CoG H-index

StG/CoG Citations citations
AdG + min AG StG/CoG
PE1 Mathematical foundations 15 / 33 / 29 281 / 141 50 / 200 9 5/8

PE2 Fundamental constituents of matter 63 / 91 / 106 4192/ 2148 1400 / 2500 30 18 / 24
PE3 Condensed matter physics 38 / 82 / 109 2357 / 1253 1200 / 1900 23 14 / 22
PE4 Physical & Analytical Chemical sciences 40 / 60 / 137 4051 / 2248 1250 / 1600 33 15 / 22
PE5 Materials & Synthesis 55 / 86 / 254 5782 / 3735 1400 / 2600 38 19 / 26
PE6 Computer science & informatics 35 / 42 / 55 564 / 262 200 / 250 10 8/8
PE7 Systems & communication engineering 55 / 87 / 51 949 / 384 400 / 800 15 10 / 15
PE8 Products & process engineering 36 / 62 / 55 503 / 242 300 / 700 12 8 / 14
PE9 Universe sciences 48 / 105 / 125 4039 / 2162 1200 / 5600 33 16 / 31
PE10 Earth system science 31 / 70 / 92 1514 / 910 500 / 1000 21 11 / 16
The AG data cover laureates 2008, the 10 year track-record (without self citations)
The StG and CoG data cover the laureates of 2012 full track record
85
85

Life Sciences Papers AdG StG/CoG H-index

StG/CoG/ Citations Citations StG/
AdG + min AG
CoG
LS1 Molecular & Struct. Biology & Biochemistry 28 / 33 / 121 4604 / 2521 1200 / 1200 29 14/15
LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics 40 / 58 / 112 5906 / 2388 1400 / 4000 39 17/22
LS3 Cellular and Developmental Biology 22 / 36 / 61 2414 / 1573 800 / 1700 25 11/14
LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiol. & Endocrinology 44 / 79 / 176 4825 / 3587 1300 / 2500 41 14/22
LS5 Neurosciences & neural disorders 22 / 32 / 70 2469 / 1461 1000 / 1500 24 11/14
LS6 Immunity & infection 39 / 82 / 83 3157 / 2224 1400 / 2600 28 16/21
LS7 Diagnostic tools, therapies & public health 57 / 80 / 81 2909 / 1555 1000 / 1500 28 15/17
LS8 Evolutionary, population & environ. Biology 22 / 60 / 68 2415 / 1310 1600 / 2100 22 11/21
LS9 Applied life sciences & biotechnology 34 / 50 / 79 1677 / 721 1100 / 1200 23 15/17
The AG data cover the laureates 2008, the 10 year track-record (without self citations)
86
86

Source Web of Science
Social Sciences and Humanities Papers AdG Citations H-index

StG/CoG/ Citations StG/CoG
AdG + min AG StG/CoG
SH1 Individuals, institutions & markets 9 / 17 / 4 11 / 5 20 / 300 1 3/8
SH2 Institutions, values, beliefs and behaviour 8 / 11 / 1 0/0 10 / 100 0 3/4
SH3 Environment & society 24 / 39 / 11 62 / 46 250 / 1000 3 7 / 15
SH4 The Human Mind and its complexity 34 / 54 / 29 268 / 217 400 / 1200 7 11 / 13
SH5 Cultures & cultural production 4 / 10 / 1 0/0 10 / 10 0 1/1
SH6 The study of the human past 2 / 14 / 1 0/0 10 / 50 0 1/3
The AG data cover the laureates 2008, the 10 year track-record (without self citations)
87
87
Yellow Research 29
3/9/2017
Section B2a: State-of-the-

Art and Objectives in 7
steps
88



89
89
Correlation between evaluation criteria and

writing instructions
 Specify clearly the objectives of the proposal in the context of the

SotA in the field (2)
 When describing the envisaged research it should be indicated how
and why the proposed work is important for the field, and what impact
it will have if successful, such as how it may open up new horizons or
opportunities for science, technology or scholarship (1, 3).
 Specify any particular challenging or unconventional aspects,
including multi- or inter-disciplinary aspects (2)
90
Yellow Research 30
3/9/2017
Extended Synopsis versus B2 part

B2 is drafted for the external referee
 Consider potential external referees:
● Expert on the topic and methodology?
● Partial expert?
 Is B2-part replacing the Extended Synopsis? Or read in
conjunction?
 Providing more details on what?
● State-of-the-art
● Gain
● Feasibility: evidence
● Objectives, scientific strategy and activities
● Appropriateness of the methodology and novelty
● Timescales
● Environment, team and budget
91
B2 – Extend State-of-the-Art and

why this project
 Provide more information on the State-of-the-Art
 Consider your competitors and colleagues in the world
 Explain the differences between your project proposal
and their research
 Why should the panel bet on your proposal?
 Be convincing
 Be polite
 Consider a critical reader who is not convinced you can
achieve what you are promising........
92
Part B2b: Methodology in 4

steps
In B2 part the reviewers are being asked to assess
the feasibility of the scientific approach by assessing
the proposed methodology in detail
93
Yellow Research 31
3/9/2017
evaluation criteria & writing instructions

Scientific Approach
that the proposed research is high risk/high gain (Extended Synopsis).
5. To what extent is the proposed research methodology appropriate to
achieve the goals of the project
methodology?
properly justified?
• Describe the proposed methodology in detail including, as appropriate
key intermediate goals (4, 5)
 Explain and justify the methodology in relation to the S-o-t-A including novel
or unconventional aspects addressing high risk/high gain balance (3, 6)
 Highlight any intermediate stages where results may require adjustment to
the project planning (4, 7)
 Justify the scientific added value of another host institute (4, 7)
94
Feasibility of scientific approach

depends on:
 Methodology – strategy of the project
 Methods, tools, models for measuring etc
 Devices, technologies etc
 Data and/or access
 Methods for analysis and interpretation
 Statistics
 Evidence for feasibility, direct or indirect
 Scope, focus, (time)scale and access
 Project structure, flow and interdepencies
 Team (incl. PI): knowledge, experience and capacity
 Environment and budget
95
Feasibility of what?
 Project idea?
 Research question?
 Hypothesis?
 Conceptual change?
 Scientific approach?
 Appropriateness of methodology?
 Need of a novel methodology?
 Level of ambition in view of the timescales ?
 Your experience and expertise?
What is the evidence for being able to interpret ?
=> In case of too high risk or too novel: publish first
96
Yellow Research 32
3/9/2017
Step 1: Detail scientific, technical, scholarly

methodology
5. To what extent is the proposed research methodology appropriate to
achieve the goals of the project
“Describe the proposed methodology in detail including, as

appropriate key intermediate goals”
 Describe per Objective / Aim / RQ:

● What is the methodology and strategy
● What needs to be achieved => formulate main tasks
● Why in this way => explain the rationale
● How this will be achieved => in depth detail of methods etc.
 Alternatively, cluster tasks per Workpackage / Strand
etc. and explain per WP: What, Why & How.
 Provide drawing on interlinkage of objectives (& tasks)
97
Checklist workplan
Cluster tasks per objective and specify:
 What is the strategy and approach?
 What are the specific tasks and why?
 What kind of methodology and why?
 What kind of methods, technologies, models using what
specific tools, devices etc will be used/applied and why?
 Can you generate information or data?
 If applicable, (how) can you measure it?
 What is the size/measure of things and why?
 Which experts involved and why?
98
Checklist for achieving objectives

 Ask yourself whether you can draw conclusions
 Are you using the best data, material, corpora, sampling
etc. and why?
● Specify when relevant nature, quality, amount, language,
accessibility
 Justify the choice of parameters, specifications, selection
procedure, size, statistics (power analysis) and address
any pros and cons compared to other sources
 Explain why the proposed amount of data to be
collected, equipment or model to be developed etc. is
realistic and can be handled and/or analysed by your
Research Team or with an expert
 Do the resources cover all objectives, periods etc?
99
Yellow Research 33
3/9/2017
Checklist access & application area

The evaluator needs to establish feasibility, therefore address
Access to Where are they Where will the results

experts, data, needed? have an impact?
methods, Immediately or later?
equipment ….
WP 1 WP 2
WP 3
Access conditions Data collection with Who can use the

Quality issues help from or by experts collected data
100
Step 2: Assess novelty methodology and need

methodology?
“Explain and justify the methodology in relation to the

state-of-the-art including novel or unconventional aspects
addressing high risk/high gain balance”
 What is novel or unconventional in the methodological
approach, tasks, methods, technologies etc.?
 Why needed? Explain choices made and the added
value in view of
● the current state-of-the-art methodology
● development of novel methodology or across disciplines by
others
● advantages and disadvantages of your methodology for others
 What parts of the approach is risky and why?
101
Step 3: Confirm feasibility

that the proposed research is high risk/high gain.
“Highlight any intermediate stages where results may

require adjustment to the project planning”
 Explain why the scientific approach is feasible (mitigation

of perceived risk)
● Your experience and expertise
● Infrastructure & access to appropriate resources
● Logical workplan
● Proof of concept
 How do you deal with remaining risks?

● Identify intermediate stages that are key in being successful
● What is your back-up plan(s)
● What consequences will these changes have on the high gain?
102
Yellow Research 34
3/9/2017
Tips for analysis of Risks/Challenges

1. Identify the risks/issues/challenges of your project proposal
2. Specify and explain the associated risks of each risk: Intellectual,

scientific, technological, operational (check the key words of your panel
for compatibility)
3. Qualify the risk associated to the challenges and its feasibility: low,
medium or high (likely or most likely) and place them in time
4. Explain why feasible (mitigation of risks)
5. Describe how you are going to adapt your research plan in case an
element is not feasible  back-up plan
6. Discuss gain and consequences of adjustments for objectives,

results, gain, impact and timescales
 Address in conjunction with methodology or in separate table

103
Example of Challenge Analysis

Be creative and adapt this example
Challenge Likelihood Counter Action Gain Impact
of risk
Concept A Medium in More theoretical High
view of interaction through …. because
proof of
concept
Method B Medium Likely feasible. If not, Medium
post doc B will visit the
lab of partner x
Dataset C Low Feasible. If not, I will High

use another dataset /
country / library
“Method X is high risk but I expect it to be feasible based on recent first proof of
principle by my team. In case of non-conclusive data I will use the....”
104
Linking High-gain/High-risk to Feasibility

Mature projects are selected
 15-35% of proposed work is  Analyse the risks and
high risk depending on provide evidence for
timeline and track-record of feasibility and mitigation or
PI and project plan: rest back-up plan
mitigated?
 Every panel is assessing
 The challenge falls within this in line with their
the scope of the panel: research field
scientific, technological,
scholarly etc.
 Justify choices made
 The challenge must impact
science/scholarly (and lead
to utility in most cases)
105
Yellow Research 35
3/9/2017
Step 4: Define timescales

properly justified?
 Provide timescales for objectives and tasks

 Indicate the duration of the tasks and accessibility
 Justify scope and focus in view of timescales and past
experience
 Indicate the interdependencies and risks and impact on
feasibility and timescales
 Include scientific milestones / key intermediate goals
 Provide information on the team distribution
 Consider timescales in writing or in a Gantt chart
106
Gantt chart: LS or PE domain

Gantt chart Staff YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Objective Function
analysis PI
• siRNA constructs PD1
• Gene silencing PhD1
!
• GFP construction PD1
• Testing PhD1
Milestone: gene
function *
Objective assay PI
• Construction
reporter assay PhD2
• Testing assay PhD2
Milestone: validation
assay *
Key Intermediate Goal ! High Risk

107
Year 5
- Monograph Monograph
PI
Adv. Board
Year 4: /Experts
• Thesis writing,
• Publications
• Dissemination PhD B PhD C
PhD A
Discourse
Year 3 Discussion
Discourse
Case Case Case Case Case Discussion
Year 2: Study Study Study Study
Study
Corpus
Building
Year 1:
• Literature
Analysis
• Set up case
studies
Yellow Research 36
3/9/2017
References 1
(No page limit also applicable to B2)
The evaluator needs to establish feasibility and assesses the facts
substantiated through references as well as your track record
 What is an assumption and what is a fact?

 Selecting the state-of-the-art related to your objectives
● World-wide
● Competitors
● Network
 Highlight your references to demonstrate your experience etc.

 References to own work reveal your experience but also the state-
of-the-art of the proposed work: novel, ongoing or done
● Consider to add a description of your achievements to the track record
or CV parts
 references are consulted to find external referees
109
Presenting your proposal
110
Create a Storyboard
 Our version of a Storyboard is a 15 page outline
 Physically start plotting and planning the space you want to

allocate to tell the story. Start from back to front:
● Start with allocating space for the resource section B2c  2 pages?
● How much space for the overall risk and feasibility analysis, timeline,
impact section and concluding paragraph (B2b) ?  1 page?
● The Workplan with activities and tasks (B2b)  5 pages?
● Separate section for (general) methodology before or after the
workplan or integrated within the workplan etc. 3 pages?
● Introductory pages on aim / concept / objectives / (B2a)  4 pages?
111
Yellow Research 37
3/9/2017
Proposal writing
Robert Porter PhD Reworked by YR
Academic writing Grant writing ERC
Scholarly pursuit: Sponsor goals: Scholarly/scientific pursuit: Individual passion
Individual passion Service attitiude & significant potential pursuing a long term vision
and having a major scientific impact matching
with ERC policy objectives.
Past oriented: work that Future oriented: work Future oriented: But sufficient mature and based
has been done that should be done on preliminary evidence demonstrating potential
feasibility of future endeavor.
Expository rhetoric: Persuasive: selling to Persuasive rhetoric: Selling by explicitly
explaining to the reader the reader explaining why your project fulfills the evaluation
criteria. Main idea / project concept has to be
convincing.
Theme-centered: theory Project centered: From theme to project: Connecting the
and thesis objectives and acitivites “Important challenges” to your “unique concept”
to “research objectives and/or questions and
claims” to ”project activities or tasks”.
Defining expected results of the project.
Robert Porter, Ph. D., Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposals, 38 Volume XXXVIII, Number
2, 2007, The Journal of Research Administration
112
112
Proposal writing
Robert Porter PhD Reworked by YR
Academic writing Grant writing ERC
Impersonal tone: Personal tone: Personal responsibility for the originality of concept
Objective, dispassionate Conveys / scientific approach / hypothesis, etc.
excitement Conveying personal excitement/ passion about the
project.
Write in first person using “I“, “my team”, etc.
Be enthusiastic but don’t overdo it.
Few length contraints: Strict length Exceeding # pages / words is penalized: ignored
Verbosity rewarded constraints: by the reviewer or proposal may even be declared
brevity rewarded ineligible.
Specialized terminology: Accesible: easily Serving 2 audiences:
insiders jargon understood Accesible for panel members who are not experts (in
particular B1)
Insiders jargon to satisfy external referees (in
particular B2)
113
113
Research Grants Vocabulary

Cover Page & Abstract
Level 1 Challenge Statement Important Challenge, Big Research Question, Big Gap
Problem, issues, hurdles, missing solution
(Big) Research Question
Concept, idea, model, Hypothesis, theory
Importance, relevance Overarching aim or objective, Research questions,
Hypothesis Focus and Scope
Groundbreaking nature, novelty, original, unconventional
Concept Goal and ambition for the future
Goal Rationale, Justification
Main activiites and methodology
General approach State-of-the-art, context
Level 2 Specific Objectives Specific aims, Specific Research Questions, Intellectual
framework, hypotheses per specific aim, conjectures
Level 3 Tasks and methodology Workplan, Project design, Work packages; Cluster;
Constellation; Phase; Stream; Strand, Activities
Evidence and Risk Analysis Feasibility, credibility, preliminary data, proof of concept,
supportive data, case studies.
Risk and Gain balance, Key intermediate goals/stages –
milestones, Gantt Chart, interdependence, Plan B
Level 4 Results and long term outcome Impacts on research, new opportunities, utility, Knowledge
utilization, open data
Other Environment and Facilities Intellectual and technological environment, access
PI/Team and Budget Embedding, expertise, knowledge, experience

114
Yellow Research 38
3/9/2017
Structuring your proposal

Design a clear structure for your entire proposal
a. State of the Art and objectives a. Introduction / a. Introduction / background
background b. Overarching aim / goal
b. Objectives and c. Concept, incl. novelty
state of the art d. Specific objectives plus main challenge
c. Impact e. Impact
Another order? Another order?
b. Methodology b. Methodology e. Methodology (per Objective)
o General approach and strategy o Similar to column o State of the art
o Detailed approach, activities per 1 o Challenges
objective / strand o Strategy
o Methods etc o Activities/Tasks including methods
o Interlinkage and sources in detail plus pilot data
o Time schedule and work flow o Feasibility, Risks, Mitigation Plan
o Feasibility and risk analysis and originality, innovative nature,
o References differences
Do not forget interlinkages!
f. Time schedule and work flow
g. References
c. Resources c. Resources c. Resources
o Costing table
o Justification of all resources
115
Logic Tree also for ERC proposals

Challenge = Big Research Question
Intrigue
Concept, Hypothesis, Approach
Specific
Specific Aim
Research
Objective Strategy
Question
Methodology; Workplan, Project design; Workpackages
Convince
Activities:
Activities: - What
- What - Why
- Why - How
- How (“objectives”)
Evidence - Evidence
Risks - Risks
Inspire Outcomes and their significance or the field
Outcome 1 Outcome 2
116
Part B2c: Resources
117
Yellow Research 39
3/9/2017
Correlation evaluation criteria and writing

instructions
properly justified?
 The requested resources should be reasonable and

fully justified in the proposal
 Describe the size and nature of the team (current +
ERC), indicate, where appropriate the key team
members and their roles
 Specify any existing resources that will contribute to
the project. Describe other necessary resources, such
as infrastructure and equipment.
118
Budget: indicative and final
 The funding requested must be fully justified
 The panels may suggest modifications
 Grant awarded with a budget limitation
 PI has the freedom to modify the budgetary breakdown

during project.
 Requests may be accepted by ERC provided within

original objectives.
119
Research Team
Relate size to experience: supervision,
current team, attracting grants, network
Principal Investigator and PI and Research Team with Experts /
Research Team workshops
PI PI
PhD students, post docs, research staff, experts, etc.

120
Yellow Research 40
3/9/2017
Team composition AdG and StG/CoG

ERC Sample 2013 covering 1000 funded ERC projects:
StG/CoG PI employs around 5-6 team members
121
Team composition
Great variety across projects
Team composition depends on Domain, Panel and

Country:
● Life Sciences largest teams;
● Physical Sciences and Engineering slightly smaller; and
● Social Sciences and Humanities smallest teams
On average per stream:

● StG teams PI + 5- 6 team members: 2 Postdoc, 1-2 PhDs,
Graduate Student or support
● AdG teams, PI + 8 team members: 3 Postdoc, 2 PhD, 1 Senior
staff member, 1 support
122
Resources
 Describe size, nature, expertise and knowledge of existing team (if
applicable) and PI, if necessary indicate the role of key persons of
current team and feasibility:
● SH: description of interdisciplinary group in the broadest sense; ability with
languages, source knowledge and availability etc.
● PE/LS: experience in handling equipment, methodology etc.
● PE/LS: experience in handling “research questions”
 Justify required resources needed for the ERC project

● 50 (StG), 40 (CoG) or 30% (AdG) or more commitment of PI (selection
criterion)
● Link personnel to project plan, including (existing) key members etc.
● Access to data/databases, methods, technologies, equipment etc. that
you need, tell what is available and what you will charge to the budget
● Justify scientific added value of external partners and tick off the
consent box in A form
 Use costing table as provided by ERC to calculate costs
 A flat rate of 25% for indirect costs in H2020.
123
Yellow Research 41
3/9/2017
Draft table for resources

Cost Category Total in Euro
PI3
Senior Staff
Personnel Postdocs
Students
Other
i. Total Direct Costs for Personnel (in Euro)
Direct Costs Travel
Equipment
Consumables
Other goods
Publications (incl. Open Access fees), etc.
and services
Other (please specify)
i. Total Other Direct Costs (in Euro)
A – Total Direct Costs (i + ii) (in Euro)
B – Indirect Costs (overheads) 25% of Direct Costs4 (in Euro)
C1 – Subcontracting Costs (no overheads) (in Euro)
C2 – Other Direct Costs with no overheads5 (in Euro)
Total Estimated Eligible Costs (A + B + C) (in Euro)6
Total Requested EU Contribution (in Euro)6
For the above cost table, please indicate the duration of the project in months:7
For the above cost table, please indicate the % of working time the PI %
dedicates to the project over the period of the grant:
124
Checklist Resources
Check whether you have justified budget (pro rata):
 Your salary (partly charged or not charged to the ERC project)

 Size, nature, expertise and knowledge of required team (existing
and new), link them to your workplan and if necessary indicate how
you will identify these new members
 Equipment: depreciation and percentage of use
 Travel costs for team and other persons linked to your project
 Publications including open access
 Deposition of computer codes, data etc.
 Described existing resources (not) charged to the ERC budget
125
Open Access to Research data
Allow / facilitate access? (optional / partial)

 Deposit in research data depository (sustainability)
 Third parties to mine, exploit, reproduce free of charge:
● The data, including associated metadata for validation of results
● Other data, including associated metadata
 Provide information via repository about tools and
instruments from beneficiary for verifying the results
 Obligatory participation in Pilot on Open Research Data

Horizon 2020, but:
 Data Management Plan (DMP) specifies level of access
126
Yellow Research 42
3/9/2017
Ethics review
after selected for funding
The main areas that are addressed during the ethics review
process include:
1. Human protection (including study participants and

researchers)
2. Animal protection and welfare
3. Data protection and privacy
4. Environment protection and safety
5. Participation of non-EU countries
6. Malevolent use of research results
127
Evaluation criteria Research Project

ERC WP 2017, p32
Scientific Excellence: Ground-breaking

nature, Ambition and Feasibility
Ground-breaking nature and potential impact of the
research project
1. Important challenges?
What &
2. Objectives ambitious incl. novel concepts &
Why
approaches or development across disciplines?
3. High-risk / high-gain?
Scientific Approach
What, 4. Scientific approach feasible.
Why, 5. Proposed research methodology appropriate
How,
When & 6. Involve the development of novel methodology?
Who 7. Timescales and resources necessary and properly
justified?
128
Writing in a box, in a box, in a box?

B2: Research Proposal Challenge, Concept, Research
Question(s), Objectives,
B2a: Objectives and s-o-t-a
Rationales, Novel Approach, 15 pages
B2b: Scientific Approach Impact, Preliminary data &
B2c: Resources figures DETAILS, DETAILS,
DETAILS
B1a: Extended Synopsis Challenge, Concept, Research
Question(s), Objectives,
5 pages Rationales, Novel Approach,
Impact, Preliminary data &
figures
B1: Cover page summary:

2000 characters (+1000 for secondary panel)
Abstract in A form
2000 characters including line breaks etc.
129
Yellow Research 43
3/9/2017
Thank you and

good luck
130
ERC Statistics
131
Who evaluates the proposals ?
Other
• Panel members: typically 600 PMs USA (7%)
(7%)
involved per call
 High-level scientists
 Recruited by ScC from all over the world
 About 10-15 members plus chair person
• Remote Referees: typically 2000 / call

 Each evaluate only a small number of
proposals
│ 132 │ 132
Yellow Research 44
3/9/2017
Success rates ERC
Eligible Funded
Success rate
proposals proposals
StG 2014 3204 375 11,7
StG 2015 2862 349 12,2
StG 2016 2887 325 11,3
StG 2017 3081 415 13,5?
CoG 2014 2485 371 14,9
CoG 2015 2023 302 14,9
CoG 2016 2274 314 13,8
CoG 2017 2539 320 14,0?
AdG 2014 2287 192 8,5 │ 133
AdG 2015 1927 277 14,4
ERC StG, CoG, AdG 2013

Age of applicants at call publication date
800
ADG 2013
700 COG 2013
600 STG 2013

# submissions
500
400
300
200
100
0
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 83
age of applications
│ 134 │ 134
│ 135
Yellow Research 45
3/9/2017
Yellow Research 46
3/9/2017
│ 140
141
Yellow Research 47
3/9/2017
142
Extra slides concept
143
B2a - New methodology to identify ....?
160
140
120
100
ERC approach
80
US approach
60 SotA
40
20
0
-12 0 12 24 36
144
Yellow Research 48
3/9/2017
B2a - Idea will unravel new cause?
Correlation or cause?
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
A B C D
145
B2a – New methodology measuring ……
Sensitivity
This ERC
Project
Resolution
146
New methodology to flexibly adapt....?
40
35
30 state of the art

25 your project
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
147
Yellow Research 49
3/9/2017
B2a – Development of new model linking

micro-scale to meso-scale
ERC
project
Seconds - days Seasons / years
State-of-the- Log 10 (t)

art: wave
driven dune
erosion
model
(micro
scale)
148
B2a – Development of new model linking

micro-scale to meso-scale
model
Prelimiary data
Sand transport ERC
project:
Wind blown
dune
recovery
model
(meso
scale)
Seconds - days Seasons / years
State-of-the- Log 10 (t)

art: Wave
driven dune
erosion
model
(micro
scale)
149
Yellow Research 50
Chapter 3
The yellow pages for R&D agreements in the technology transfer process
Writing ERC Proposals,

2017 and 2018 call
Contact details
Dr. Mette Skraastad
skraastad@yellowresearch.nl
Lotte Jaspers
jaspers@yellowresearch.nl
Jet van Dijk

vandijk@yellowresearch.nl
Aya van den Kroonenberg, PhD

Vandenkroonenberg@yellowresearch.nl
ERC 2017 and 2018 call
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1. Reading Instructions 4
2. What is the ERC about? 5
2.1 Strategy and objectives of the ERC........................................................................ 5
2.2 Focus of selected ERC projects ............................................................................. 6
2.3 The ERC Scientific Council..................................................................................... 6
2.4 ERC Grant schemes............................................................................................... 7
3. Evaluation criteria and procedures 9
3.1 Scientific Excellence as sole selection criterion ..................................................... 9
3.2 Quality of the Scientific Proposal............................................................................ 9
3.3 Quality of the Principal Investigator ...................................................................... 15
3.4 Evaluation procedure Step 1 and Step 2.............................................................. 18
3.5 The interview ........................................................................................................ 21
3.6 Resubmission: The Evaluation Summary Report................................................. 22
4. How to get started 25
4.1 A year in advance: Talk, talk, talk and Think, think, think ..................................... 25
4.2 Self-analysis ......................................................................................................... 25
4.3 To which panel to submit? .................................................................................... 26
4.4 Organize a support team ...................................................................................... 27
4.5 Create a Storyboard ............................................................................................. 28
5. The art of grant writing 30
5.1 Difference between/ writing a scientific article or an ERC Grant proposal........... 30
5.2 Important lessons ................................................................................................. 31
5.3 Practical writing tips .............................................................................................. 32
5.4 Checklist ............................................................................................................... 33
6. B1 Cover Page Summary and Abstract 35
6.1 B1 Cover Page Summary in 2000 characters ...................................................... 35
6.2 Cross panel box: 1000 characters – Use with Care ............................................. 36
6.3 A1 Abstract in 2000 characters............................................................................. 36
6.4 Final check on summary and abstract.................................................................. 37
7. B1a Extended Synopsis 38
7.1 Intrigue: ................................................................................................................. 38
7.2 Convince ............................................................................................................... 40
7.3 Inspire ................................................................................................................... 41
7.4 Practical points: .................................................................................................... 41
8. B1 The Principal Investigator 43
8.1 Provide detailed information to your reviewers .................................................... 43
8.2 Your pathway to excellence: from Waltz to Foxtrot .............................................. 44
9. B1b Curriculum Vitae (max 2 pages): 46
9.1 Other topics you may consider to add to the CV. ................................................. 49
10. B1b Appendix Funding ID 51
11. B1c Early achievements track-Record (max 2 pages): 52
11.1 The benchmarks ................................................................................................... 52
11.2 Publications .......................................................................................................... 53
11.3 (Granted) Patents ................................................................................................. 55
11.4 Invited presentations to peer-reviewed, internationally established
conferences .......................................................................................................... 55
Copyright © March 9, 2017 by Yellow Research 2 of 91

Table of Contents
11.5 Prizes and Awards ................................................................................................ 55

11.6 Other ..................................................................................................................... 55
12. B1c 10 Years track record (max 2 pages): 56
12.1 The benchmarks ................................................................................................... 56
12.3 Publications .......................................................................................................... 56
12.4 (Granted) Patents ................................................................................................. 58
12.5 Contribution to career of excellent scientists ........................................................ 58
13. B2 The Scientific Proposal 60
14. B2a State of the art and Objectives 61
14.1 Important Challenges and the Big Research Question ........................................ 61
14.2 Ambitious objectives ............................................................................................. 63
14.3 High-gain/High-risk balance.................................................................................. 65
15. B2b Appropriate Scientific Approach 66
15.1 Addressing the evaluation criteria feasibility and methodology............................ 66
15.2 Writing Instruction ................................................................................................. 68
16. B2c Resources 72
16.1 Size and nature of the Team, including PI commitment ....................................... 73
16.2 The Costing Table................................................................................................. 75
17. A Ethical Issues A-Form and Ethical Issues Annex 78
17.1 Ethical Issues Annex and Checklist...................................................................... 78
17.2 Ethical Review Procedure..................................................................................... 80
Annex A. Matching project proposal to evaluation criteria 82
Annex B. EURECIA WP3 Survey Report 84
Annex C. Ethical Glossary 88
Annex D. ERC Database, finding project descriptions 91

1 – Reading Instructions
1. Reading Instructions
Yellow Research has in the past developed several guides for writing H2020 proposals.
This particular guide is dedicated to “Writing an ERC proposal”.
After our experiences with FP7 and the first calls in Horizon 2020, it was time to drastically
revise our understanding of “Writing an ERC proposal”. We are not necessarily experts in
your field but we have read hundreds of proposals across all the panels; both successful
and unsuccessful. We share our experiences with you in this guide. We are not repeating
the information available in the official ERC documentation but where needed we use it to
explain how the ERC selection criteria are interpreted by the panels and used to select the
best proposals. This guide addresses “Writing an ERC proposal” for any research field.
Therefore, we are limited with regard to the level of specific information we can provide for
each ERC panel in this guide. Nevertheless, we are confident that based on the
information presented here you will have a jump start when writing your ERC proposal.
Please be aware that copying or redistributing this guide is not permitted without our
specific written prior agreement. This guide is personal, it is yours and provides you with
tips on how to write the best proposal possible. Therefore, please do not (re)distribute it.
This guide is set up in accordance with the ERC Guide Information for Applicants
published in July 2016 (Starting Grant 2017 call), November 2016 (Consolidator Grant)
and May 2016 (Advanced Grant 2016 call), the project template (for an ERC Grant 2017
Call) provided by ERC and the ERC Work Programme 2017. Please use the official ERC
guides and check for each call the specific requirements of the Information for Applicants
and the format of the EPSS application forms. Use our YR guide for informational
purposes only.
• ERC coded chapters contain general information with regard to ERC;
• A and B refer to the proposal sections;
• B1 code refers to the information you have to provide on the Extended Synopsis (B1a)
and the Principal Investigator (B1b-CV and B1c-track record) ; and
• B2 code refers to section 2, the Scientific Proposal.
We hope this will help to quickly identify the topic of your interest.

2– What is the ERC about?
2. What is the ERC about?
ERC is one of the activities of the H2020 framework which is run by an independent
council.
2.1 Strategy and objectives of the ERC1

The European Research Council (ERC) was officially launched in February 2007. It is the
first pan-European funding body to support investigator-driven frontier research. It is
financed under the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
(H2020) with a budget of 13 billion euros for the period 2014-2020.
The ERC was created to address the need to develop long-term funding for researchers to
pursue ground-breaking, high-risk/ high-gain research. Such research is to set a clear and
inspirational target for frontier research across Europe. In other words, the ERC was set up
to ensure that future worldwide scientific leaders choose Europe as a fruitful region to
establish themselves instead of moving to the USA. Therefore, the sole criterion for
selecting an ERC project is Scientific Excellence. The other principles used for selecting an
ERC project deal with 1) the inter-disciplinary nature of proposals crossing the current
boundaries, 2) new and emerging fields of research or 3) pioneering proposals with a novel
approach or based on a scientific invention.
This explains why ERC is placed in the top left corner of the Horizon 2020 grant structure.
It involves/concerns research based on challenges/needs in science (Part I) that are not
pre-defined. This in contrast to the grants awarded in Part II Industrial Leadership or Part
III Societal Challenges. Within the pillar of Excellent Science the challenges that ERC will
1. Annual Report on the ERC activities, see footnote above.

fund are of a high-risk/high-gain nature that supersedes the other grants in this Excellent
Science pillar. To define such a challenge we advise you to carefully read the chapters
addressing the parts B1a and B2a in this guide.
2.2 Focus of selected ERC projects

Considering the objectives and principles of the ERC, the focus of the panels is on projects
that address important challenges at the frontiers of your scientific field. These challenges
may be of a fundamental or applied nature. In order to assess if a project is addressing
important challenges a forward look has to be taken to the next set of evaluation criteria:
the high-risk/high-gain balance and the feasibility. Panels try to select proposals which are
innovative and original, addressing an urgent research question or important challenge and
will lead to ground-breaking results, changing the current knowledge. These results must
impact the research field and lead to a utility/use by the scientific and/or social community
in the future. Only when all these elements are fulfilled will an evaluator qualify a proposal
as frontier research. Please note that in the past calls the scientific quality of the proposals
has improved providing the panels with the opportunity to choose sufficiently mature
projects.
Buzzwords in former calls:

• Well defined objectives and a well-structured work plan both in relation to the
activities as well as the technical details of these activities (2009)
• Feasibility analysis with a back-up plan or contingency plans (2008), demonstrate to
what extend objectives can be achieved when there is only partial progress (2015,
2016)
• Impact of the proposal on the research fields of the panel leading to a paradigm shift
(2010)
• Novel, ground-breaking and impact on science and utility (call 2011)
• Rationale of the choices made (call 2012)
• Concept (call 2013)
• Important Challenge, Research Question & Ambition (2014)
• Mature projects or low hanging fruit (2014, 2015)
2.3 The ERC Scientific Council2

The ERC Scientific Council is an independent, autonomous body consisting of 22
distinguished scientists from a broad range of fields. It is responsible for setting the ERC’s
scientific strategy, including establishing the annual ‘Ideas’ work programme and calls for
proposals, designing the peer review systems, identifying the peer review experts, and
communicating these with the scientific community.
The ERC’s Scientific Council acts as its policy-making supervisory body. It oversees the
operational management of the ERC and directs its scientific strategy. The operational
management is carried out by a dedicated Executive Agency, increasing the user-
friendliness of this programme for researchers.
The ERC has been given the mandate to deliver competitive research funding at the
frontier of knowledge, and at EU level, thus adding value to and complementing national
research funding agencies. This presents new and exciting opportunities for frontier
3
research in Europe, except nuclear energy application . The focus is on high gain and high
risk projects, assuming that they will have a major impact on the current scientific or
2. Annual report on the ERC activities and achievements in 2007, prepared under the authority of the ERC Scientific
Council
3. Nuclear Energy research applications falls under the EU framework programme Euratom

4
scholarly field. The Scientific Council of the ERC has designed the ERC grant schemes
with the aim to promote research excellence in all fields of science, engineering and
scholarship, and to secure the corresponding human capital. This is achieved both by
retaining in Europe and progressively recruiting from overseas some of the top research
talent of the current as well as the next generation. Through these schemes, the Scientific
Council aims to improve conditions in the research sector, thus making scientific careers
attractive in Europe, both within and outside of universities.
In recent years the ERC has put more emphasis on the possibility to recruit researchers
from other countries. The ERC has started a PR campaign to inform researchers attending
scientific or scholar events in the United States and other parts of the world about ERC
funding for foreigners. In parallel the ERC is also encouraging host institutes to scout for
excellent researchers on a worldwide level.
2.4 ERC Grant schemes5

The ERC has five types of grants: Starting, Consolidator, Advanced and Synergy Grant
6
and a Proof of Concept Grant . All grants operate without predefined thematic priorities;
individual research investigators have the opportunity to propose ‘bottom-up’ research
projects including high-risk, interdisciplinary projects which are evaluated on the sole
criterion of excellence. There are no restrictions on the nationality or age of the principal
investigators to be funded by the ERC, but they must carry out their research within the
European Union and/or Associated Countries.
• The ERC Starting Grant is for applicants that have been awarded their first PhD
between 2-7 years or an MD between 4-9 years ago. The ERC recognises that there
is a gap in funding opportunities for researchers in the early stages of their careers,
as they move towards being independent research leaders in their own right. The
grant supports researchers with a view to establish their own independent research
team. It provides a structure for the transition from working under a supervisor to
becoming an independent research leader. To demonstrate the intellectual capacity
of the applicant it is mandatory that the applicant has published one publication
without his/her PhD supervisor.
• The ERC Consolidator Grant is focused on researchers who were awarded a PhD
degree between 7 and12 years or a MD degree between 9 and14 years ago. This
grant is very similar to the Starting Grant with the following exceptions: the
consolidator should already have several publications without the PhD supervisor,
several past scientific achievements demonstrating his/her independent creativity
and intellectual capacity and is consolidating his/her research team.
• The ERC Advanced Grant is focused on the most talented and innovative
established researchers. Advanced Grants are intended to promote substantial
advances at the frontiers of knowledge, and to encourage new productive lines of
enquiry that will require any new methods and techniques. Novel and
unconventional approaches and investigations at the interface between established
disciplines are encouraged, as the high risk is justified by the possibility of a major
breakthrough with an impact beyond a specific research domain or discipline. The
very high standards required under this scheme have been made explicit and
transparent, with the aim of encouraging self-assessment of potential applicants,
establishing realistic expectations on the part of the research community, and
managing the demand for such grants.
4. Scholar field is the research field of humanities

5. Annual Report on the ERC activities, see footnote above.
6. Only available for (recent) ERC grant holders. Please check Information for Applicants POC 2017

• The ERC Synergy Grant enables small groups of Principal Investigators (with a
designated Lead Principal Investigator) and their teams to bring together
complementary skills, knowledge, and resources, in order to jointly address research
problems at the frontier of knowledge going beyond what the individual Principal
Investigators could achieve alone. The team is preferably located at one host
institute to facilitate close collaboration. In the past there were two pilot calls and the
results have been evaluated by the ERC, but not published. The ERC is planning to
to relaunch the call in 2018, with a potential deadline in November 2017.
• In addition ERC grantees can apply for a Proof of Concept Grant to bring their ERC
project results with an exploitation potential closer to the market. These grants are
available for all ERC grant holders. See for eligibility the ERC Work Programme.

3– Evaluation criteria and procedures
3. Evaluation criteria and procedures
3.1 Scientific Excellence as sole selection criterion

Scientific Excellence is the sole evaluation criterion for selecting the Principal Investigator
as well as the Scientific Project.
The ERC is instructing the panels how to evaluate and select proposals based on pre-
defined evaluation criteria, see the ERC Work Programme. In our view it is important
before you start to write the proposal to spend some time on understanding the criteria and
how these are used in assessing the proposals, in the panel discussions in Brussels and
the overall ranking of proposals. This may increase the likelihood that your project is
selected for funding.
3.2 Quality of the Scientific Proposal

The evaluation of part B1a (Extended Synopsis) and B2 (Scientific Proposal) is quite
unique because reviewers do not have to provide individual scores per evaluation question
for these parts, although they do give specific comments. Furthermore, reviewers do not
score individual subparagraphs of the template which is the case in many other types of
grants. Therefore, it is entirely up to you how and where you choose to address the
information relevant to these evaluation questions and, more importantly, to the
overarching question of Scientific Excellence.
Before customising the template to best fit your proposal, it is wise to analyse each
criterion and see where in the proposal you will address this criterion. See our chapter
“Writing in General” for more information on the storyboard of a proposal. Remember to
repeat the main messages in different wording to ensure the reader captures them
(success rates increases significantly). In other subsequent chapters we will address how
to write the different parts using the template. The table below contains the full list of
questions applied to the full scientific proposal as presented in part B2. The first four
questions to be addressed are with regard to assessment of the B1a Extended Synopsis.
But in the H2020 calls we advise you to include also information in a few sentences
discussing the appropriateness to the methodology to achieve the goals, the timescales
and budget..
In column 1 we added some critical questions on how you have to break down the
evaluation questions presented in column 2. The first row provides the overarching
evaluation criteria of which the primary criterion is Scientific Excellence. Besides scientific
excellence there are some further specifications like ground-breaking nature, ambition and
feasibility. Also be sure you properly understand how these terms are used by the panel
members in their search f high quality proposals and in selecting the proposals for funding.
Scientific Excellence is the sole criterion: Ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility
• To what extent does the proposed research address important challenges?
What &
Why • To what extent are the objectives ambitious and beyond S-o-t-A (e.g. novel concepts and
approaches or development across disciplines)?
• To what extent is the proposed research high risk/high gain?

Scientific Approach
What,
Why, • To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible bearing in mind that the proposed
How, research is high risk/high gain? (based on the Extended Synopsis) (assessed in step 1 = B1a)
• To what extent is the proposed research methodology appropriate to achieve the goals of the
project ? (based on the full Scientific Proposal)
• To what extent does the proposal involve the development of novel methodology ? (based on
the full Scientific Proposal)
When, • To what extent are the proposed timescales and resources necessary and properly justified ?
Who (based on the full Scientific Proposal)
3.2.1 Understanding the evaluation criteria for B1a and B2

Although there are different evaluation questions, these questions strongly interrelate and
will be used by the reviewers to discuss the Scientific Excellence of your proposal versus
the other proposals. Nevertheless we will analyse the questions here one by one.
Please note that each question starts with the phrase, to what extent…... You have to
provide the information to what extent you are addressing each evaluation criterion. Please
be explicit and explain what is obvious to you but may not be to the critical reader.

One has to bear in mind that the words potential impact and ground-breaking nature of the
research project are related to each other but they are not synonyms. The potential Impact
of the research refers to the potential of the project to open up new research lines and
directions. An indirect potential impact may be on the society and industry (not being
explicitly asked for by the ERC but taken into account by the panels during reviewing and
selection). Ground-breaking nature refers to the important pioneering, innovating,
unconventional, steps taken in the project proposal towards such impact by generating or
delivering results changing our current knowledge and/or understanding. Therefore impact
is broader than the ground-breaking nature of the proposal, however there is a catch.
Currently, the scientific quality of the ERC project proposals is so high that the panels are
selecting mature projects and disregard projects that are too risky. Whether your project is
too risky depends on several factors. Consider for yourself what is the competition on your
topic or challenge (a very competitive field needs an outstanding project concept and
approach), how disruptive is your project concept (more evidence may be required to
convince the reviewer that your concept is based on facts) and what evidence do you need
to convince your peers (external referees in step 2) to write a positive feedback on your
proposal in step 2.
Scientific Excellence: Ambition, ground-breaking and Feasibility

Independent of the findings of each reviewer in relation to the questions listed below, the
panel members (being reviewers in step 1 and in addition to the external referees in step
2) the panel members can in their panel discussions in Brussels take a more overarching
view based on the above criteria. This will allow the panel members to compare projects to
each other whereas the individual criteria below are more focussed on the specific project
at hand. For example if a project is ranked very high based on the review of the individual
review questions below, the discussion in the panel can focus on which project shows the
most ambition and has a potential higher impact or which project is addressing an urgent
challenge or research question in science. For projects submitted to the domain of
Physical Sciences and Engineering or Life Sciences this may involve preliminary data or –
if too novel or too disruptive – published results. Selected proposals may not be fully
realised but the proposed ground-breaking results presented are already promising in light
of the feasibility. In all domains the panels check whether the track record of the PI fit the

proposal. The panels will also consider how many other groups are working on the same
topic, and preferentially select those projects truly deviating from the main research lines.
In the domain of humanities the feasibility can be balanced by the PI track record in the
past without any preliminary results. The scientific excellence comes with a sound project
idea, leading most likely to a paradigm shift or conceptual change in research. So the
combination of ambition, ground-breaking and feasibility demonstrates scientific
excellence.
To what extent does the proposed research address important challenges?

Crucial in this question is the nature of the challenge(s) that you will undertake. Therefore
the first questions to address are: what is the challenge, why is this is a challenge in
research and why is this an important challenge for carrying out research? This challenge
may for example be of a theoretical, conceptual or applied nature. Your challenge could be
a common challenge in research which is still unresolved such as curing cancer by
providing an innovative therapy based on a radical novel type of drug. In this case the
project needs to have a truly novel project idea and/or concept. But it can also be novel to
the community, as in the humanites, which have new and unexpected consequences and
significance for research.
Whatever is the nature of the challenge that you are going to address, the challenge needs
to be described in terms of What & Why. The significance of the challenge for the scientific
community must be clear because that makes the challenge important but will also be
used to select projects for funding. Therefore, in most research fields reviewers expect a
Big Research Question which captures the challenge to be addressed.
If it is the custom to phrase research questions in your field, you are advised to critically
review the quality of your research question by asking yourself: So what is it that makes
this challenge significant for my direct and broader scientific community. Then provide an
answer to the question “To What Extent” you are going to address the challenge(s) in the
project proposal. Are you solving an important problem/issue or a major hurdle or key
element to change our way of thinking? Opening up new perspectives for research in your
field and beyond (basic research) or also for applications (more applied research based on
new knowledge)? It is very important that the reviewers understand what your ambition is
in addressing the challenge and why this is the right level of ambition in view of the current
state of the art, competition and timescales of the project.
To what extent are the objectives ambitious and beyond State-of-the-Art (e.g. novel
concepts and approaches or development across disciplines)?
It is important to explain to the reader why your objectives are ambitious, even although it
is hard to fathom that without ambition the challenge or Big Research Question can be
successfully addressed. In most research fields it is the custom to present the objectives
separately, since these indicate how the challenge will be addressed. Sometimes these are
presented in combination with research questions and/or hypotheses. In other research
fields it is the custom to present research questions and explain in the methodology
section how these research questions are addressed (objectives). In mathematics or
specific fields of social sciences the objectives are combined with conjectures. Reviewers
have no problems with reversed order of presentation of topics in a project proposal, as
long as you clearly explain to the reader how the information should be interpreted: what
are the research questions or challenges and what are the objectives. We have noticed in
2016 call that the panels are more critical regarding objectives, research questions and
challenges since the quality of ERC proposals has increased.
The crux of this evaluation question is in what is asked for in between the brackets: will
your objectives lead to novel concepts, novel approaches or novel developments affecting
multiple disciplines. It is extremely difficult for reviewers to understand why you will be able
to 1) address the challenge(s) better than others, 2) carry out the ambitious objectives and

3) make such ground-breaking contributions. In order to understand this, reviewers ask

themselves what is the novel concept, or approach or development across disciplines in
your project that will make it possible to make such a jump start in science. Reviewers are
not assessing under this criterion the full state of the art - from where the research
originated to the conceptual change. The reviewers only want to understand what the
current limitations of the state of the art are in relation to the jump start that you are
proposing to overcome said limitations. This implies that you do not have to present the
state of the art as in a review article or monograph.
The meaning of the word concept is very hard to translate across all disciplines. There are
two different types of concept in an ERC project. The most simple translation is “the
underlying project idea” regarding the project proposal or “novel concept or conceptual
framework” regarding the impact on current knowledge or understanding.
It is important to clarify what your idea is to the panel (general experts) and external
referees (specific experts). Most applicants are not sufficiently explicit in describing their
project idea and explaining why this idea is the best way to address the important
challenge(s), which makes it difficult for the panels and reviewers to assess and score your
project. It may be very clever and sophisticated but without understanding this extra
dimension, this underlying idea, it will be hard for the reviewer to understand why the
challenge could potentially be addressed by you.
But the novel concept may also be the result of your project, a conceptual change or new
concept contributing significantly to the current knowledge. It is therefore important to
analyse what kind of new knowledge your project will generate and whether this is
sufficient. The panels – consisting of experts with broad expertise and knowledge- are very
good in conceptualising your potential findings, assessing in general your methodologies
and assessing whether your project results will lead to a conceptual change in science.
Panels are also assessing the novelty of the scientific approach or methodology. This can
either be achieved by developing a novel methodology, borrowing a methodology from
another discipline or even by combining methodologies. In case of a combination, of
methodologies, explain carefully why this combination is unconventional in your research
field. By opting for a novel methodology you are able to tackle a challenge or research
question.
In many cases, selected ERC projects are leading to new knowledge and/or new
methodologies tackling nearly the same challenges or research questions as previous
funded projects, but from a different angle or based on a novel concept. Check the funded
ERC projects to assess what makes your project different and why the ERC should fund
your project. The panels are using this information in prioritising proposals for selection.
To what extent is the proposed research high risk/high gain?

The general assumption is that without taking high risks it will not be possible to achieve
the high gain as you have been describing under the Challenge. But after about 9 ERC
calls the reviewers have become rather wary of the big promises of high gain and the high
risks involved. In the last few calls the panels are preferentially selecting mature projects.
But what is a mature project in view of the high risk/high gain balance? Mature projects
have a sound project idea and scientific approach and contain sufficient evidence for
feasibility of generating new knowledge that will lead to a paradigm shift. The kind and
amount of evidence needed for proving or showing feasibility depends on the research
field. It may range from credibility of the PI (humanities) to credibility of the PI plus
sufficient scientific evidence (life sciences and applied physics). Scientific evidence can be
a single measurement demonstrating you can measure the parameter to statistic evidence
(for example in some fields of physics), but in most cases you would like to have more
solid evidence. How much evidence you need to convince the panel depends on your track
record in the past, the method used and your research field. Pleae note that a mroe

disruptive project needs more evidence. We have noticed in the past few years that also
the timing is crucial. If the project is too novel it is more difficult to convince the panel that
the scientific approach is feasible. You may consider to balance the risk with the high gain.
It is helpful to clarify what the potential gain will be for the worldwide research community,
including potential users inside and outside the research commnuties. However, please be
realistic.
You need to discuss carefully the necessity of high or medium risks in your project. The
panels are opting for sufficiently mature project, where the likelihood of success is high. A
conclusion of the Rathenau report 2016 is that the ERC panels do not select risky projects
but that the grantees carry out more risky research with permission of the ERC by adapting
the original funded project. The question is whether the ERC panels are selecting high risk
projects in H2020? It seems that most panels currently expect that risks linked to the
project concept are mitigated by convincing results (except humanities panels) and that
risks linked to the methodology are accepted, provided a solid mitigation or back-up plan is
provided for the methodology. You can also mitigate the risks by highlighting your past
scientific achievements. It is unclear to us whether this is due to a change in selecting
projects (more conservative) or an increased scientific quality of the project proposals in
general (low hanging fruit). Please note that this pendule may swing back again to
selecting high risk projects.
It is therefore essential to critically analyse the risks, the kind of risks (for example
conceptual, method, data) and their need and to include a risk analysis with alternatives or
mitigation plans for your high-risk parts.
To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible bearing in mind the
proposed research is high risk/high gain? (based on the Extended Synopsis)
(assessed in step 1 = B1a)
The reviewers expect to find an answer to the above question in the B1a which must
contain a work plan that describes what will be done and lists the key scientific, technical
and scholarly details (the ‘how to’). This is the bare minimum that reviewers expect to find
in relation to the feasibility of the project. However, feasibility of the scientific approach is
not defined by the ERC and may comprise strategy, methodologies, methods, tools,
technologies, devices etc deployed as well as Why are You able to carry out this ambitious
research project and also what kind of preliminary evidence do you have that will indicate
potential feasibility of the workplan/methodology. It also comprises focus, scope,
timescales, accessibility, budget, environment and expertise. The emphasis is placed here
on the preliminary nature of the evidence so as to avoid the impression that the project is
simply the next step in your research and therefore not very ambitious. A deviation from
former research or ongoing research is assessed very positively and in some panels as
crucial. Findings that have been published recently are acceptable as long as it is clear
that there are still major challenges to be addressed. If the project idea is radically novel,
the ERC grantees have sometimes first published their findings in order to provide
evidence that the findings are true indeed. If the challenge is one of the biggest challenges
of science we advise you to apply several times till you have added sufficient evidence to
convince the panel that the project is feasible.
The question to what extent is the scientific approach feasible is unfolded in the next
questions based on Scientific Proposal which are addressed in step 2 of the evaluation.
The external referees are asked to assess these questions in detail and provide input to
the panel discussions and/or interview sessions. .
To what extent is the proposed research methodology appropriate to achieve the

goals of the project? (full Scientific Proposal – B2)
The reviewers will assess whether the methodologies proposed for achieving your
objectives/aims or answering research questions are appropriate for this purpose. Although

this criterion is supposed to be only applied to the B2, the feasibility criterion will already
evoke the question whether the proposed methodology is appropriate. Therefore, this
question already needs to be addressed in the B1a.
Research methodology comprises your strategy and general methodology but also more
detailed information such as activities, key methods used and what kind of data, tools,
technologies, devices.
To what extent does the proposal involve the development of novel methodology?
(full Scientific Proposal – B2)
In many fields reviewers assume that ground-breaking science can only be achieved
through the development of novel methodologies. The wording novel methodology is used
in a broad sense and indicates for example the development of novel methods, tools,
technologies and devices. Some panels select projects developing new methodologies,
others select projects that are using a methodology for the first time in a specific research
field. A novel element in the methodology will most likely lead to a higher overall
assessment score. Please check the keywords and scope of the ERC panels to select the
panel best fitting your project with regard to the topic and methodology. One must clearly
indicate what is novel, why it is novel and why it is needed to achieve the goals or
objectives. Just as with the appropriate methodology criterion discussed above, reviewers
will already assess the novelty criterion in the B1a in relation to the ambitious objectives
and high-risk/high-gain criteria. In particular for the high-risk/high-gain criterion many
reviewers assume that without novel methodology development there will not be any high
risk and therefore no high gain.
To what extent are the proposed timescales and resources necessary and properly
justified? (based on the full Scientific Proposal)
Timescales: Reviewers will want to understand that it is possible to carry out the ambitious
project within the duration of the project. The timescales are thereby limiting the focus and
scope of your project. Most likely you have selected a major challenge that can not be
resolved in 5 years time. Reviewers will be assessing to what extent you will be able to
resolve the challenge in 5 years time, the timescales of each objective, activity or task,
where the risks are and what implication is of adjustments on timescales and high gain,
and the distribution of team members over tasks.
Resources: This question is critical for the assessment of who will be working on your
project and the justification of the costs. With regard to the team, be careful when you
include experts that they do not overshadow you or that you more or less create a
consortium of collaborators. Follow the instructions of the template carefully when
addressing this criterion and ask qualified support staff such as financial administrator or
international officers within your university to help you with writing this part of the proposal..
The term resources extends to any source or resource needed and includes research
environment, technological infrastructure, expertise and knowledge of the team and host
institute, accessibility. Explain carefully what the host institute will provide and what is
needed from the ERC for carrying out the project.
Research Environment – not an evaluation criterion anymore

Since the 2011 call this evaluation criterion has been removed, also in the proposal format.
Nevertheless, reviewers will look from the perspective of the overall feasibility of your
proposal whether you are located at the right host institute. To address this issue it is
important to describe the available intellectual and technical infrastructure of your host
institute and research team in the scientific approach section or resources section. If you
need funding for team members working at other host institutes, the scientific value needs
to be justified in the scientific approach section and the costs in the resources section.

See also the annex with our checklist of questions on the selection criteria
3.3 Quality of the Principal Investigator
Scientific Excellence is the sole criterion:
Although there are different evaluation questions, Scientific Excellence is the sole criterion
and applies to both the scientific proposal and the principal investigator in the ERC
application. The reviews contain scores for each of the specific questions:
• Outstanding (or 4 points)

• Excellent (or 3 points)
• Very good (or 2 points)
• Good (or 1 point)
Reviewers, both panel members and external reviewers, find it difficult to score the
different evaluation questions presented in the table below in accordance with this scale.
Therefore, the overarching criterion Scientific Excellence is key in the panel’s decision in
the end as to decide which of the PI’s fulfill this overarching criterion. The scores on each
criterion in combination with the optional comments provided on the evaluation summary
report is therefore merely a tool to help the panel in their decision as to which of the
applicants are fulfilling the criterion of Scientific Excellence. Some panels also take into
account when assessing the PI, whether the PI has the right profile for the proposed
scientific project.
In assessing the track record of the PI, the panels take into account the research field of
the PI, publication procedures, ranking of the journals/conference proceedings and any
evidence of international recognition. The panels are aware that not everybody can publish
in top journals such as Nature of Science and citation numbers depend on the type of
research, research field, recognition by peers and time lapsed. For example, if you develop
physical theories or write monographs you have less “papers” and citations then a
researcher in life sciences. Having said that, panel members do check whether you have
been able to publish in top journals or conference proceedings in your field or with top
publishing houses. In many panels, chairs and vice-chairs instruct the panel members to
look at the context in which the PI has worked or is working and to balance this with the
proposed project idea. In the last few calls, funding has been awarded to researchers with
an outstanding idea and a pioneering track record without many citations.
Therefore, the PI should provide more information in the CV and track record sections than
simply the requested lists. Not only should the PI understand each evaluation question of
the table below but the PI should also provide information on what makes him/her an
outstanding candidate for this proposal, i.e. what is that makes the PI Scientifically
Excellent. See the specific sections in our guide on writing the CV and track record part but
first one must understand the explanations per criterion as provided below.
Starting Grant and Consolidator Grant:

Scientific Excellence: Intellectual capacity, creativity and commitment
To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to propose and conduct ground-breaking
research?
To what extent does the PI provide abundant evidence of creative independent thinking?
To what extent have the achievements of the PI typically gone beyond the state-of-the-art?

To what extent does the PI demonstrate the level of commitment to the project necessary for its
execution and the willingness to devote a significant amount of time to the project (min 50%
(Starting) or 40% (Consolidator) of the total working time on it and min 50% in an EU Member
State or Associated Country) (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?
The Advanced Grant evaluation criteria are as indicated above +

To what extent has the PI demonstrated sound leadership in the training and advancement of
young scientists?
execution and the willingness to devote a significant amount of time to the project (min 30% of the
total working time on it and min 50% in an EU Member State or Associated Country)
(based on the full Scientific Proposal)?
3.3.1 Understanding the evaluation criteria for B1b-CV and B1c-Track-record:
Scientific Excellence: Intellectual Capacity and Creativity

Scientific Excellence is based on the combination of all the information provided in your CV
and Track-Record which must clearly show your intellectual capacity and creativity and
fulfill the expectation of the panel with regard to your potential of becoming a scientific
leader or establishing this leadership and pushing your research field to the frontiers.
To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to propose and conduct ground-
breaking research?
• Propose ground-breaking research: for example the capacity to attract funding and
in particular individual grants from national research councils, fellowships and other
grants focused on ground-breaking research;
• Conduct ground-breaking research: for example (in)formal supervision of Masters

degree students, PhD students and postdocs, being a Principal Investigator or
Coordinator or a key partner in collaborative research projects leading to major
papers.
To what extent does the PI provide abundant evidence of creative independent

thinking?
• Starters and Consolidators: Independence is evidenced by publications without the
PhD supervisor and affiliations to different universities, preferably in other countries.
The ERC bench mark for independent thinking is at least one major paper without
your PhD supervisor if you are an ERC Starting Grant applicant and several if you
are an ERC Consolidator Grant applicant. However, please note that these are
bench marks only to determine eligibility and in most cases more papers are
expected for an applicant to be successful (based on selection criteria). Take as a
rule of thumb at least one major paper every 1 or 2 years. If you have a small
research team this number is probably higher and in the order of 1 to3 major papers
or conference proceedings per year.
Evidence of creative thinking means that you have carried out research for first time
that led to international recognition through for example numerous citations, a paper
in a major journal/conference proceeding or an important monograph . Therefore,

you need to point out to the reviewer what was groundbreaking about your
publications and, in particular when you are a starter/consolidator, you need to make
your role explicit.
• All applicants: Indicate whether you have been pioneering or have come up with
creative ideas opening up new horizons and opportunities for research in the past.
To what extent have the achievements of the typically gone beyond the state-of-the-
art?
• Highlight what makes you stand out. What is it in your CV that will get the point
across that you are an “internationally recognized scholar/scientist”. Is there self-
explanatory evidence such as invited lectures at conferences, published conference
proceedings selected by key conferences in the field, papers, conference
proceedings and monographs drawing a lot of attention by peers, journals, society,
opening up new research fields in the past. Any sign or evidence of impact on
science, scientific landscape or society is proof. Where necessary include
explanations.
Advanced Grants: To what extent has the PI demonstrated sound leadership in the
training and advancement of young scientists?
Do not only look at the number of PhD students and Postdocs you have trained but also at
where they are working now as an indication of your leadership qualities or which position
they obtained after leaving your team. Also list any prizes or honours your team members
have been awarded.
To what extent does the PI demonstrate the level of commitment to the project
necessary for its execution and the willingness to devote a significant amount of
time to the project?
• The minimum commitment is for Starting Grant applicants 50%, for Consolidator
Grant applicants 40% and for ERC Advanced Grant applicant 30%. This minimum
commitment is an eligibility criterion. But the percentage of commitment is also a
selection criterion. To be awarded a higher score for commitment we advise you to
go for a higher commitment. Consider as a Starting Grant applicant to start very high
with 70-90% commitment in the first 2 years and lowering it to 50-60% in the last
year by explaining the reviewer that you will attract additional funding. We advise
you not to go for the full 100% because this means that you cannot work on anything
else, which may block opportunities to conduct research with others or attract
additional funding. If you have a lot of other commitments, you would like to show
somehow that you are truly committed to this project.
Added Value of the past has been replaced by Ambition

In previous calls the panels were also assessing the added value of the ERC Grant to the
scientific career of the PI. In 2014 this was changed to the overarching criterion Ambition
for the scientific proposal. Ambition is a much broader term and allows reviewers to
balance a candidate’s track record versus the stage of the PI’s career. This criterion
“Ambition” is also applied to disqualify some extremely good researchers whose their
proposal is not ambitious enough for someone with an outstanding track record. If you
already had important publications on the topic of the proposal, any major grants on a
similar topic or if you are building on the results of your previous ERC grant, then you must
clearly indicate why the proposed research is ambitious for someone with your track
record. Alternatively, consider deviating significantly from former research lines, thereby
opening up new perspectives for research.

PhD “age” is not an evaluation criterion but an eligibility criterion!

In principle all applicants stand a fair chance to obtain an ERC Starting, Consolidator or
Advanced Grant. The reviewers take into account the years of scientific career and any
career breaks or unconventional research career paths, see the annex in this guide where
7
we included a summary of the project ERCCAREER by Claartje Vinkenburg . There is only
a dip in the success rate for the applicants applying in their third or fourth year after their
PhD date since reviewers have problems in assessing their creative independent thinking .
3.4 Evaluation procedure Step 1 and Step 2

The Information for Applicants guide contains the most important elements of the call, like the
deadline, budget and minimum number of participants. In case of the ERC Starting/Consolidator
Grant it is the only source of further information on the Peer Review procedure because no
separate guide for Peer Review has been issued for Starting/Consolidator Grants in the last calls.
The evaluation will take place in two steps following the single submission of a full
proposal. In the case of the ERC Starting, Consolidator and Synergy Grant an interview
session is included in step 2, prior to the panel meeting to discuss the ranking of the
proposals.
The evaluation is carried out by panels which may be assisted by external reviewers. The
allocation of the proposals to the various panels will be based on the expressed preference
of the applicant by selecting the primary panel and appropriate ERC keywords in line with
the abstract. In case the applicant has indicated a secondary panel for review, the panel
may request an additional review from the secondary panel in step 1 or of a panel member
active in an alternative panel (see alternating panel information below). Such review needs
to be explicitly requested by the chair of the primary panel and approved by the chair of the
secondary panel. Panels have very different experiences in getting these requests granted
7. ERCCAREER, Claartje Vinkenburg,

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2014_08_07/caredit.a1400200

and therefore there is no guarantee that a reviewer with the requested scientific/technical
background from the other panel will review the project.
Proposals are evaluated remotely before the panel meeting is held in Brussels. In some
panels the members have up to 30 proposals that they need to read in step 1 of the
evaluation.
3.4.1 Keywords
The PI is responsible for selecting the keyword. The first keyword selected will decide on
the primary panel for review. A secondary review panel can be indicated but consider what
would happen if this secondary panel becomes your primary review panel because the
panel chair feels that this secondary panel should do the primary review. Is the project truly
written to be reviewed by a completely different panel?
Use the system of Keywords 2, 3, and 4 to consider which other areas could perhaps be of
st
useful assistance in reviewing the proposal; your 1 keyword will most likely provide the
lead reviewer.
3.4.2 Step 1
The Guide for ERC Peer Reviewers and the ERC Work Programme contain the basic
information:
Following the submission of the proposal and the eligibility check performed by the
Executive Agency of the ERC (ERCEA), the proposal is in principle assigned to a panel in
accordance with the first key word and primary panel chosen by the applicant in form A1.
Subsequently, the ERCEA drafts a list for assigning the proposals for review to the panel
members and the chair reviews these assignments. It is therefore important to select the
right primary keyword fitting your proposal, enhancing the chances that your project is
being understood. In step 1 Section B1 of the proposal will be assessed and marked by at
least 3 panel members, resulting in at least 3 individual assessments. If required, the

primary panel may ask for an additional review by a panel member of another panel or – in
some cases - an external reviewer.
The reviewers are asked to mark the proposals with a numerical score ranging from 1 to 4
and justify these scores, see chapter ERC Evaluation Criteria of this Guide. Subsequently
the panels meet for 2-3 days in Brussels to discuss the individual assessments and
numerical scores, rank the proposals and assign an A to C score.
To pass to step 2 the proposal needs an A score for the PI and Scientific Proposal
criterion. The panels have each their own strategy to discuss all proposals. A great cause
for stress during panel discussions is when there is one strong dissonant opinion voiced by
one panel member. It is up to the chair to decide how to deal with this. .
Proposals with consensus on a numerical score lower than 2 for PI and/or Scientific
Proposal criterion in all individual assessments are put aside as rejected without a lengthy
discussion by the panel. The proposals with a numerical score of 4 for the PI and Scientific
Proposal criterion in all individual assessments are shortly discussed and if the panel
agrees these proposals pass to step 2. After this quick shifting of very good (lower than 2
score) and outstanding (a 4 score) proposals, all other proposals with a score between 2
and close to 4 are discussed in detail by the panel to (re)assess the scores and determine
whether these proposals are awarded an A, B or C. At the end of this evaluation of step 1,
the panel will rank the proposals taking into account their numerical scores and comments
of the individual reviewers and the panel assessment. Subsequently, the panels discuss
options for external reviewers per proposal. But we have also heard that some panels have
no lengthy discussions about the content of the proposals in step 1 and just agree with the
ranking list produced by the ERCEA without much debate but discuss in depth the options
for potential external reviewers per proposal.
In proportion to the budgetary demand of the proposals assigned to each panel, an

indicative budget will be allocated to each panel. This indicative budget is calculated as the
cumulative grant request of all proposals to the panel divided by the cumulative grant
request of all proposals to the domain of the call, multiplied by the total indicative budget of
the domain. In practice this implies that the PE panels are assigned more budget than SH
panels which, have less proposals and lower budget requests. Each panel will determine
its budgetary cut-off level as a multiple of its indicative budget. The budgetary cut-off level
is set by each panel and may be 2 to 3 times the panel's indicative budget.
The proposals ending with an A score are passed to step 2. The lead reviewer has then to
come up with a list of potential external reviewers and in some panels this means a list of
12 names because of the poor acceptance rate by external reviewers. Therefore, the lead
reviewer will carefully check your references, the “free keywords” included in the online
form to find names to whom your proposal can be sent for review.
The proposals with a B score are above the quality threshold but of insufficient quality to
pass to step 2 and are rejected and have to wait one call. The proposals with a C score for
1 or 2 selection criteria are below the quality threshold and cannot be resubmitted for two
calls.
There are two main reasons for giving a C: the PI and the proposal are not competitive or
the PI is excellent but the project is too immature.
3.4.3 Step 2
The complete version of the retained proposals will be assessed by at least 3 panel
members and 2 to 5 external referees. In most cases the proposals will partly be
redistributed over the panel members leading to additional panel reviews. It is therefore
important to draft a well written Extended Synopsis that the panel members of the step 1

review will remember in step 2, although they have not been reading your proposal in step
2.
In case of an interdisciplinary proposal the chair may request panel members of another
panel to review the proposal8. The reviewers are instructed to give scores and justify the
scores by addressing the questions per selection criterion. These individual assessments
are collected by the Executive Agency.
In the case of ERC Starting Grants, Consolidator Grants and Synergy Grants an interview
session can take place in Brussels. The individual assessments, including the
assessments of external reviewers, are used as guidance for the interview session in
Brussels. The interview session has an impact on the final score of the proposal. It is
therefore important to prepare yourself for these interviews by practicing the presentation
and anticipating scientific and general questions.
Subsequently the panel will determine the final score in a panel meeting, which will be
based on the individual assessments and scores, the discussions by the panel and in the
case of ERC Starting Grant, Consolidator Grant and Synergy Grant schemes also the
outcomes of the interview. Subsequently the panel will rank all proposals assigned to the
panel and assign an A or B score.
Following the conclusion of the panel evaluations the following additional steps will be
taken with the participation of the panel chairs:
Acting in concert, the panel chairs of each research domain or their deputies, representing
their panels, will prepare a consolidated ranking list for the domain's proposals which are
above the quality threshold and can be funded in order of priority from the respective
9
domain budgets . The chair panels will also provide a list of proposals on the waiting list for
funding.
Any funds still available in a panel, after exhausting the list of proposals over the quality
threshold, will be pooled and used for funding additional proposals on the waiting list
across all 3 domains, in accordance with the decision taken by the panel chairs in a
separate meeting.
Finally, a number of proposals in the 3 domain lists may be kept in reserve to allow for
eventualities such as the failure of the granting procedure, the withdrawal of proposals,
budget savings agreed during the granting procedure based on the panel’s
recommendations, or the availability of additional budget from other sources. Additional
funds will be distributed according to the initial call budget breakdown.
The proposals with an A score and within funding range are selected for funding; with an A
score just below the cut-off point for funding are put on the reserve list in case there is
some budget left over, with an lower ranked A are not on the funding or reserve list. All
applicants marked with an A of a B without funding in step 2 can resubmit in the next call.
3.5 The interview
Only for ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants applicants

According to the ERC Work Programme call 2017, page 31, the Principal Investigators
whose proposals are retained for the second step of the evaluation will be invited for an
8. Please note that in call 2012 the interdisciplinary domain was deleted. The primary panels are responsible for an
appropriate review by other panels or extra external reviewers, if required.
9. In accordance with the ERC rules for the Submission of Proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award
procedures relevant to the Ideas Specific Programme.

interview to present their project to the evaluation panel at a meeting in Brussels. They will
be reimbursed for their travel and subsistence expenses.
In duly justified and exceptional cases, and with the consent of the Scientific Council, the
Executive Agency may agree, subject to technical feasibility, on other ways of interviewing
successful Principal Investigators such as by video link, teleconference or similar means,
and on the reimbursement of their possible related travel and subsistence expenses.
Relevant provisions for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in relation to Principal
Investigators' interviews are included in the ERC Rules for submission of proposals and
the related evaluation, selection and award procedures for indirect actions under the Ideas
Specific Programme of H2020.
3.6 Resubmission: The Evaluation Summary Report
Step 1 and 2 of the Evaluation Report

Step 1: The B1 part is reviewed by 3 up to 5 panel members. The reviewers (panel
members) only have access to the information provided in part B1, the Extended Synopsis
and the PI information. In other words, the B2 is not being reviewed in this step.
Step 2: The B1 and B2 parts are assessed by the initial reviewers including 2 to 4 external
reviewers, sometimes even 7 external reviewers. The assessment of the external
reviewers will be used by the panel members assigned to the proposal but the panel draws
its own conclusions which may support the external reviews or may step away from their
assessment.
The Selection Criteria

The evaluation summary report identifies on page 1 which evaluation criteria have in this
call been applied. In step 1 a subset of the selection criteria are applied and in step 2 the
full list of selection criteria are applied. In case of resubmission in a next call it is important
to check the changes to the evaluation criteria
Panel Score and Ranking Range

In step 1, approximately 2-3 times the reserved budget per panel passes from step 1 to
step 2. The reserved budget per panel is calculated by multiplying the total requested
budget by projects in panel for a specific call with the overall success rate.for this specific
call. In most panels 26-28% of the proposals pass to step 2. The applicants not passing to
step 2 will be informed how highly they were ranked. The ranking range is given in 10%
slices.
Note for people interested in numbers: The total requested budget by projects per panel
depends on the amount of projects in that specific panel. Some panels receive a lot of
projects and have therefore percentage wise more budget to award. The success rate of a
specific call is depending on the amount of projects being submitted for a specific call
multiplied with the reserved budget in total. The reserved budget is announced in the ERC
Work Prprgamme for each call. The likely success rate of a call can be calculated after the
closure of that call, when the ERC has announced how many applications have been
submitted. The success rate is normally in the order of 10-15%.
Step 2 is very similar except that the cut off is somewhere between 40 and 50%,
depending on how many proposals the panel allowed to pass from step 1 to step 2 for
full review. The applicants not receiving funding may be awarded 1) an A and placed
on the reserve list, 2) an A and no funding or 3) a B and no funding. All applicants
without an award will receive information on their ranking.

Panel Comment Box

On page 2 of the ESR you will find the panel comment box. The first couple of paragraphs
in this box are standard paragraphs for all evaluation summary reports. The second last
paragraph reflects the consensus reached by the panel during their meeting in Brussels.
and is inserted by the lead reviewer. The consensus meeting in Brussels may give rise to
internal panel specific discussions about the interpretation of project in view of the
evaluation criteria in order to rank the project, taking into account that the projects should
be groundbreaking and leading to high gain. Below the panel’s consensus box there are
listed all comments of the individual reviewers, being the panel members in step 1 and
panel members and external referees in step 2.
Each panel is operating independently and has autonomy in translating the ERC
evaluation instructions into something that is practical and workable within their specific
scientific discipline.
Individual Reviewer Comment Boxes

The individual reviews in step 2 reflect the remote assessment of each external reviewer, .
Some caution is required when analyzing the individual reviews, because the panel may
have disagreed with the view of the individual reviewers. After analyzing the panel
comment box it is quite often possible to find the lead reviewer’s individual comment. Do
analyse the individual reviews in light of the panel comment box.
Lead Reviewer
The panel members are experts but most likely not in your field. Each panel member in
step 1 has to review 30 proposals, there may be only 2 to 3 proposals that are in the direct
area of the panel member’s expertise. Therefore the chair spends one day in Brussels
together with the scientific officer on assigning proposals to reviewers and deciding who
will be the lead reviewer for the actual project. Therefore do not expect that the lead
reviewer is the one with the most detailed comments on the proposal (these may have
come from external reviewers). Check the panel comment and perhaps based on the
specific wording used, the lead reviewer can be identified. Make sure that you understand
the comments made by the lead reviewer because this is the focus for redrafting the
proposal.
Comments addressing the Research Project

The reviewers address in both steps of the evaluation the first 3 evaluation criteria related
to the groundbreaking contribution and potential impact of the proposal as a single
analysis. In step 1 this is followed by a specific analysis on the scientific approach which
directly relates to the feasibility of the proposal. In step 2 there are more specific evaluation
criteria applicable to assess the feasibility. They relate to the appropriateness and novelty
of the methodology as well as the justifications of the resources and timescales. Although
step 2 further details the evaluation of feasibility, many reviewers already dig into these
issues in step 1. Please note that panel members may not always read the B2 part in full
detail as external referees are doing. See chapter “Evaluation criteria and procedures”
Principal Investigator
Here one can observe the greatest discrepancy between the reviewers individual
comments made when reviewing the proposal at home and the consensus when sitting in
Brussels. Therefore check the panel comment before analyzing the comment on the PI
section.

Alternating Panels
The panels alternate from year to year; there are odd year and even year panels.
Therefore consider if you resubmit to the same panel as before, then check the panel
composition because some or all of the reviewers may be the same. The panel members
are attracted for 3 review rounds. Therefore a panel member who in 2015 was active for
the third time, will most likely not be a panel member anymore in 2017. Chapter
“Evaluation procedure: Step 1 and Step 2” provides more in depth detail.
Do not expect when resubmitting the project to the alternating panel that this panel has any
knowledge on how your project was actually reviewed last time.
Common criticism
Step 1 review of the 5 page Extended Synopsis:

• Not having sufficient impact (wrong panel)
• Lack of understanding why the project is potentially feasible; (missing preliminary
evidence and/or lacking peer review acceptance of critical data on controversial
approaches)
• Lack of understanding why the project may yield the promised outcomes
• Lack of scientific, technical or scholarly detail on the methodology
• Project seems not very ambitious in the light of PI’s previous achievements
• Project seems overly ambitious
Step 2 review of the full proposal:

• The proposal is groundbreaking but lacks impact
• Not clear why this is a high-risk/high gain proposal
• Credibility of the proposed methodology is not established because of lack of
scientific/scholarly/technical detail and/or underpinning evidence
• Not clear why proposed methodology will lead to the described outcomes
• Project focus is too narrow or project is not sufficiently focussed

4 – How to get started
4. How to get started
4.1 A year in advance: Talk, talk, talk and Think, think, think
It takes time to develop a competitive proposal for ERC. Most winning proposals went
through a long preparation period. Allow yourself sufficient time to figure out what will be
your main project concept, focus and scope and scientific approach. If you start to write
down your ideas too soon, this may result in a tunnel vision obstructing creative and
flexible thinking and preventing you from reshaping your project if needed.
During this phase of project development, you usually have several ideas that you would
like to develop further to see which works best for you and which is most suitable for the
funding scheme you are applying for, considering the evaluation criteria of the chosen
funding scheme. Usually, there is some tension between your idea and the requirements of
the funding body. For example, an important evaluation criterion of an ERC project is that it
should be high-risk and high-gain, yet feasible. In addition, maybe not all your project ideas
are equally feasible. Allow yourself to test several scenarios in this phase. Explore several
wild ideas or seemingly unimportant side tracks. Be ambitious in your scientific goals, but
also realistic. The trick is to carry out only the most relevant part of a research project
leading to the biggest impact or added value for novel research opportunities.
Concept development. A nice and very helpful tool in this first phase is to develop one or
more visual images of your project concept. An important advantage of this approach is
that you are forced to stick to the big picture, without getting lost in too much detail. Try to
find the essence of your concept. Translating this into a visual image will support your
creativity. You may use the visual images to discuss your concept with your colleagues or
friends. Try to include state-of-the-art /novelty, impact as well as your role in such visual
images. We will provide some examples during the training. Most winning proposals went
through a long project development time and were sufficiently mature. ERC grantees have
told us that they already started discussing project ideas a year before the deadline l with
their colleagues at their institute and across the world. It is both necessary and feasible to
start early since the ERC evaluation criteria and process are not subject to significant
changes between calls. Keep re-iterating the key components and keep asking yourself
the ‘So What’ question in relation to the question ‘why is what you are proposing potentially
groundbreaking and will have a significant impact on the field’. The ERC panels are
selecting projects leading to a paradigm shift in knowledge.
Time constraint. Most applicants are busy people. We see many good applicants starting
too late with their preparation of a proposal. Sometimes applicants start too soon with the
proposal writing (i.e. before really completing the project engineering phase) and then
discover that they need to change their project concept. Another common pitfall is that
applicants start too late with the proposal writing resulting in a badly written and unclear
proposal. Make sure that time constraints are never the reason for a rejected proposal!
Therefore, always make a time schedule. Although most time schedules will not be met, it
will help you to structure the process of project and proposal development.
4.2 Self-analysis
Envisage future research

Challenge yourself by envisioning where you see yourself with regard to your research
career or future research.
Career: Where will you be in 5 to 10 years time on the career ladder? Will you be the
leader of a small focused group in the case of StG or CoG applicants or will you start to
become a scientific leader in your field?

Future research: What will or will you have established a new line of research with your
ERC project? What new research horizons and opportunities have you opened up for
yourself and others? What scientific or scholarly problem would you like to have solved in
10-20 years? Discovered a new element? Found the solution for treating cancer by
immunotherapy? What is your vision? The vision you have of your research career and
research achievements, however blurry this vision may be, is the starting point for
formulating a bold and daring research proposal.
To help you with formulating your research vision we provide some stepping stones:
Current state: Start with analysing your past achievements and current research
programme or /lines in order to identify the topics, big research questions, challenges,
main scientific/scholarly achievements and main methodologies in your research career.
Project what fundamental challenges or big research questions are you currently
addressing and is there a red thread through your career? What kind of research do you
have to carry out now to overcome the challenges or research questions driving your
current research? You have now a rough map of your research and knowledge. For a more
refined map revisit all your on-going and proposed projects and identify and evaluate your
results, past achievements, methodology, methods, tools, technology, equipment, data and
other items relevant for your research.. You now have a fine grained map of the current
status of your research programme, your knowledge and expertise.
Future: Consider what is your main long-term goal is in research. Envision then future
research projects, potential short-term results and long-term outcomes of each research
project and their impact on your research “programme”, research fields and your scientific
career. Try subsequently to map out these future activities in time and determine what kind
of research is necessary to bring your research to a higher level (for example by becoming
a frontier researcher or having a greater impact on research).
Challenge, urgent research question or gap of knowledge: Subsequently, identify what kind
of challenging research or urgent research question or gap of knowledge needs to be
addressed by you to solve a major issue in research and ensure that you and your
research become scientific leading in the world.
Impact on science: Formulate in 10 to 15 sentences the impact your research idea will
have on your field and how this may open up new horizons for further research in your
research field and adjacent research fields as defined by the scope of the chosen primary
panel and a possible utility in the future. Try to conceptualise your results and place them
in a larger context. For example, can your results be used to solve other problems? Or can
your results be generalised?
The outcome of this analysis is a map of your current knowledge and expertise but
hopefully also a clear vision of your future research.
This future horizon analysis will help you to describe how your project will go beyond the
state-of-the-art and the unconventional, to formulate ambitious objectives and a
challenging but feasible methodology and to explain ‘why now’. In most cases we see that
panel members are selecting proposals addressing a new research line or direction and
not a continuation of previous work. This future horizon analysis will help you to describe
how your project will go beyond the state-of-the-art and the unconventional, formulate
ambitious objectives and a challenging but feasible methodology and explain ‘why now’. In
most cases we see that panel members are selecting proposals addressing a new
research line or direction and not a continuation of previous work.
4.3 To which panel to submit?

Even though there are 25 ERC panels it is sometimes difficult to find the right panel for
your project, in particular when your project is very interdisciplinary. Each panel has its own

specific scientific focus. It is therefore important when in selecting the primary review panel
(see also chapter 3.4 above: “Keywords”) to analyse which panel (or scientific community)
would scientifically be intrigued by your scientific proposition and at the same time would
be inspired by the possibilities that your project may provide for their scientific community.
Choose very careful a panel when your project is interdisciplinary; even when the methods
and techniques come from another field(s) the best option is to choose the panel where
your project results will have a major impact, creating excitement within the chosen panel.
The panels have 10-15 panel members. Per panel approximately 14-20 keywords
characterise the research scope of the panel. Each panel member is an expert in 2-4
keywords. Keywords are published in the Information for Applicants documents (note that
in particular the keywords for the Social Sciences and Humanities domain have changed
and relocated to other panels in the past calls!). Panel members are afterwards published
on the ERC Website, except for the Panel Chairs who are known well in advance of the
deadline for submission. Please note that the success rate of an ERC call is identical for all
panels since the total available budget is allocated between the 25 panels according to the
budget demand per panel, see page 14 of the ERC Work Programme 2017.
It is important to do background research into what kind of projects have been in the past.
The ERC website10 has a very nice database which will allow you to browse through all the
project abstracts of projects that have been awarded grants, see also the annex to this
guide. Focus on those projects that have been selected after the 2012 call since those are
a better reflection of what is currently being selected. Since the 2014 call the abstracts are
the original abstracts of the proposal and have not been revised for publication on the ERC
website (as in previous calls). Besides the information on the abstracts you can also find
reports commissioned by the ERC, such as the EURECIA 2012 report containing their
analysis based on the first ERC call. See their website www.eurecia-erc.net for more
information or the short summary in the annex to this guide.
You may also check the CVs of recent ERC laureates in the panel of your choice. As ERC
laureates are published on the ERC website, you may be able to find their CV on the
internet. However, do keep in mind that the quality of the CV should never be considered
as a “stand-alone” evaluation criterion as the match between the CV and the project is very
important. Furthermore, if your project is outstanding you may end up with an ERC grant,
even although your CV is not outstanding.
You can make an educated guess who may be on the panel in the year of submission of
your proposal based on former panel members (note the distinction between even-year
panels and odd-year panels). Most panel members are active 3 times. You may know
some of them, or you may be able to find out some information about their background and
research focus. We hear from panel members that they do not appreciate to be
approached by ERC applicants, even when they are only contacted to get information
about general procedures.
4.4 Organize a support team

It is recommended to build an administrative and scientific support team well before you
start writing your proposal. With regard to the administrative support, we advise you to
discuss the project budget timely with your financial department, as this will influence the
size of your ERC team and therefore the scope of your project. With regard to the scientific
support, your team should consist of experts from your field as well as experts from
neighbouring fields. You may ask them to review several versions of your proposal, and –
even before that- to be available to discuss your project concept.
10. http://erc.europa.eu/projects-and-results/erc-funded-projects

While some panels are very broad, and others are a bit more focused, every panel
consists of a mixture of experts. Make sure your support team is also a mixture of different
types of experts. You may expect from an expert in your field to be able to read between
the lines but an expert in a neighbouring field may not have this high level of understanding
about the subject to properly assess your proposal. Consider also different cultural
backgrounds. Nordic applicants are in most cases too modest, not giving themselves
sufficient credit and Southern applicants are in some cases too ambitious, not explaining
the rationale and feasibility in sufficient detail.
To assess your chances to go to step 2 of the evaluation process, you may ask a colleague
in a neighbouring field and possibly from another country to read the B1 part only,
mimicking the first step of the evaluation process.
4.5 Create a Storyboard11

After you have completed the steps listed above and before you start writing the full
proposal text, we recommend that you create a so-called “Storyboard”. Just bear in mind
that the B1a and B2 ERC templates are completely form free (however, there are strict
page limitations!). The paragraphs proposed in the template are just a suggestion for how
to structure your proposal since the ERC was unable to provide a project template fitting all
kind of research projects. The council assumes you are clever enough to structure your
project without their help.
Your Storyboard may consist of words representing the various headings and subheadings
of your proposal and in addition it may consist of pictures or schematics. The idea is that it
does not involve any full sentences or text and that you create a logic flow (“story”) in your
proposal at a high abstraction level.
In our workshop we propose a Storyboard for part B2 starting with an introduction /

background addressing main challenges in your field incl. importance  overarching aim /
goal  concept incl. novelty  specific objectives and/or research questions  main
challenges of your project. Per objective / research question: state-of-the-art (incl. PI’s
contribution)  challenges  strategy incl. novelty  activities and tasks incl.
methodology, sources, pilot data  risks and feasibility, and ending with: time scales and
resources and references. An alternative Storyboard, which is more suitable for part B1,
might be based on (some of) the evaluation criteria of your project including headings such
as: development across disciplines, high risk- high gain nature of the project, feasibility of
scientific approach,.
A next step might be that you allocate space to each of the (sub-) headings and “fill in”
these headings with text. When doing this, keep the boundaries of the allotted space in the
back of your mind in order to avoid that you end up with a first version that is twice the
length allowed and extremely difficult to reduce. In our experience it is quite often very hard
to severely cut back on text when the text has not been focused enough from the start. It is
never a matter of deleting a complete paragraph, it is quite often the language itself that is
long-winded which means you will have to do a complete editing job.
Finally, you reduce your first draft to within the correct page limit and send this to members
of your support team for review and feedback. Never send a version that is too long for
review as the panels are instructed to disregard text beyond the page limit, to ensure that
that overall review process is fair.
In your final version you incorporate the received feedback and make sure to stay within
the page limit. You may also send this final draft to a native English speaker if you are
uncertain about your English writing skills. If you have taken enough time in the project
11. The idea of a Storyboard is derived from A Manual for writers of research papers, theses and dissertations, Kate L.
Turabian, eighth edition, which we have adapted to fit in the context of writing an ERC project.

development phase (discussing your project idea with others), you can write your proposal
in a relatively short amount of time.

5– The art of grant writing
5. The art of grant writing
5.1 Difference between/ writing a scientific article or an ERC Grant

proposal
The difference between writing an ERC grant proposal and a scientific publication lies in
the fact that you need to persuade your reviewer to accept a novel idea that is high-
risk/high-gain but which has not yet been conducted whereas writing a scientific publication
is past oriented: the work has been done. To present such a future oriented work in a
limited number of pages (5 for the B1a excluding references) is rather challenging. Another
difference is that the ERC grant proposal is assessed by reviewers within and outside your
field while most of your scientific journal papers are only read by colleagues in your field. In
contrast to other grants an ERC grant proposal has some characteristics of a scientific
peer-reviewed article: it is all about the scientific/scholarly pursuit and not about pursuing
the sponsor goals but it needs a personal tone instead of the objective dispassionate tone
12
normal to the scholarly/scientific article . Another difference (which is not addressed by
Porter), is that the typical reviewer of a submitted journal article does not have to deal with
the severe time constraints of panel members. In the first step of the evaluation process of
an ERC grant proposal, panel members have very limited time to read the B1, while
external referees reviewing the B2 are supposed to have more time, like referees of
scientific journals.
Robert Porter, Ph. D.13 Reworked by Yellow Research for ERC
Academic Writing Grant Writing Writing an ERC grant
Scholarly pursuit: Sponsor goals: Scholarly/scientific pursuit

Individual passion Service attitude Individual passion & significant potential pursuing a long –term
vision and having a major scientific impact matching ERC policy
objectives.
Past oriented: Future oriented: Future oriented
Work that has been done Work that will be done Though sufficiently mature and based on preliminary evidence
demonstrating potential feasibility of future endeavour.
Theme-centred: Project-centered: Important challenge/Research question centered
Theory and thesis Objectives and activities From theme to project: Connecting the “important challenges”
from “unique concept” to “research objectives and/or questions
and claims” to”project activities or tasks”.
Defining expected results of the project.
Expository rhetoric: Persuasive Persuasive rhetoric
12. Robert Porter, Ph. D., Why Academics Have a Hard Time Writing Good Grant Proposals, 38 Volume XXXVIII, Number
13

Explaining to the reader “Selling” to Selling by explicitly explaining why your project
the reader fulfills the evaluation criteria. In particular,
convincing the reader that your project concept /
approach / methodology is novel by comparing to
the state-of-the-art.
Impersonal tone: Personal tone: Personal tone

Objective, dispassionate Conveys excitement Personal responsibility for the originality of concept / scientific
approach / hypothesis, etc.
Conveying personal excitement/ passion about the project.
Write proposal in first person using “I“, “my team”, etc.
Individualistic: Team-focused: Individualistic:

Primarily a solo activity Feedback needed As opposed to most research grant proposals, an ERC grant is
an individual grant, so in this respect it is an individual activity.
In exceptional cases, there may be a co-PI.
Few length constraints: Strict length constraints: Strict length constraints
Verbosity rewarded Brevity rewarded Exceeding any page length is penalized: ignored by the reviewer
or proposal may even be declared ineligible. References in the
B1 and B2 no longer count towards the page limits. Abstract and
summary should be equal or less than 2000 characters ,
Specialized terminology: Accessible Specialized terminology made accessible
“Insider jargon” B1: Easily understood B2 should involve “insider jargon” as it is read by (and should
be convincing for) experts in the field during step 2 of the
evaluation process. However, B1 should be easily
understandable avoiding “insider jargon” as it is read by panel
members only in Step 1 of the evaluation process.
5.2 Important lessons

In the first evaluation step, the written proposal text you submitted (B1) is the only
communication form with the reviewers. When your proposal is selected for step 2, ERC
Starting and Consolidator Grant applicants have the opportunity to correct any mistakes or
provide explanations during the interview session. ERC Advanced Grant applicants do not
have this second chance.
Know your audience. In general, it is in your interest that the reviewer understands your
project, allowing him/her to assess the quality of the proposal according to the evaluation
criteria. Therefore, , do remember as discussed above that in particular in the first step of
the evaluation process (B1), the reviewers of your proposal may not be experts in your
field.. A common pitfall of inexperienced applicants is that they overestimate the expertise
of the reviewer and use too many abbreviations and jargon, and do not sufficiently explain
their project. This can mean that some panel members will not be able to understand your
project.
On the other hand, the B2 part will be reviewed by external reviewers who are typically
experts in your field. Therefore, the B2 part of your proposal should include sufficient
methodological detail to convince this type of reviewer.
Besides the scientific background of the reviewer, you must also consider the cultural
diversity of reviewers. Americans like proposals in which you clearly express your
enthusiasm, passion and confidence for your project, while Northern European readers
perceive this as “too much” and maybe even as arrogant.

Take the reviewer by the hand. The average reviewer is a busy person (in particular the
panel members reading part B1 in step 1 of the evaluation process), and therefore the
reviewer may not have as much time as you would like him/her to have to read your
proposal. Therefore, make it easy for the reader to recognize the essence of your project
and to quickly assess the evaluation criteria. You can do this with a simple and
straightforward proposal structure and layout. Use clear (sub-) headings and clarifying
figures, schemes and tables. Do not start with a lengthy introduction or a discussion on the
state of the art. It is better to come straight to the point, highlighting your innovative idea for
the development of your field of research. Start with the best you can offer and explain
later.
With regard to the assessment of the evaluation criteria, you will have to help the reviewers
by providing concrete evidence which will aid in evaluating each evaluation criterion. In
other words, do not simply say that your concept is novel, but explain why by referring to
the current state-of-the-art. When writing any proposal part, always keep in mind which
evaluation criteria it must meet/fulfill and which questions the external referees will ask
themselves?. Use the same keywords in your proposal as in the evaluation criteria and
questions so that the evaluator can recognise them easily.
You can only make a first impression once: the power of the abstract or summary. On the
cover page of B1 part you have to provide a half page summary which is usually the first
text a reviewer reads. Therefore, this abstract or summary often defines their first
impression of your proposal. From psychology, we know that it is very difficult for people to
change their initial opinion once formed, take for example the first impression made in an
interview. In other words, you must write a strong summary addressing all the evaluation
criteria, including an introduction of yourself, as this is the most important part of your
proposal. You must also make sure you spend enough time on it and if you were to have
only one hour left to further improve your proposal, it would be best spent on your
summary.
5.3 Practical writing tips

• Use plain English. Plain language is a way to not only convey the science that you
are conducting but also the value of that science in terms that can be understood by
a reviewer who is not an expert on the matter. A title like “The Impact of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls on Aureal Hydrocarbon Receptors” is much harder to
understand than “The Impact of Toxins on Liver Repair”. This becomes even more
important when the reviewers assigned to your proposal are of multi-disciplinary
composition.
• Persuasive rhetoric. Be modest with persuasive rhetoric and avoid adjectives like
excellent, huge and great. With respect to the ERC jargon: use words such as novel,
groundbreaking and important.only when needed, so you avoid weariness of the
reviewers and do always explain “why”.
• I/he/she/PI or “we”? Take personal responsibility for the originality of the research
question and also the concept and hypothesis. Especially in the case of an ERC
Starting or Consolidator Grant application, write “I“ or “the PI“ when you write about
your personal scientific achievements in the past and your hypothesis, idea and
(overall) goal of the project. Write “we” when you describe the implementation of the
project by your research team: my contribution to this project was.., my hypothesis
is.., we will study, investigate, collect, interview, measure, analyse……. Be careful
with the use of the word “we”, as it can for example refer to you and your team but
also to you and your supervisor. If you consistently avoid “I”, this may jeopardize the
perception of your independence. Consider to use “I and my team” instead.

• Personal touch? Make sure to refer to yourself and your previous work in your
research proposal. Not only to convince the reviewer that you are the right PI for this
project but also to add a personal touch to your proposal. You may consider to say a
few words about your motivation or passion for your project (“these exciting
preliminary results …..”or “I chose to go to the US for a post-doctoral position
because ….”).
• Highlighting text. You may use bold, italic, underline and apply colours or a
combination thereof. In doing this, make sure to be consistent. For example, use
bold text to highlight full sentences and use italic to highlight specific words. In
general - although this may be a matter of taste - avoid the use of colours in
combination with bold, italic and underline.
• Be self-assured: you ARE a good scientist or scholar and the funding is essential to
get to the top and become a world leading scientist or scholar. In the case of ERC
Advanced Grant, you need the grant to carry out a new research line. Write with
enthusiasm and a sense of urgency. Be inspiring, so that the reader will share your
passion for the subject. Therefore, start with the most exciting part of the project and
use the next pages to explain the originality, scientific approach and feasibility.
5.4 Checklist
After you have written your full proposal, read it and cross out any part which you do not
like or are not sure about, because inevitably the evaluators will pick up on this and it will
have negative consequences for your scoring or may be the focus of the interview. This is
not to say that you have to hide possible disadvantages of your proposed methodology or
any potential risks of your project. If you do this, the panel members might think you are
not aware of these issues or that you are hiding something. Mentioning them shows that
you are realistic and not shying away from problems.
Use the following checklist to make sure you do not forget anything:
• The focus will be on high-gain and high-risk projects. The ERC is favouring projects
that are not a logical continuation of ongoing research, being just an incremental
step in research. Therefore, clearly state what the innovative part is of your project
to assist the reviewers in determining whether and why your project is novel,
innovative, original, unconventional, groundbreaking, challenging and going into a
new direction leading to major impact on your research field and adjacent research
fields and is NOT just ongoing or incremental research;
• Ensure to include preliminary results demonstrating that the core concept of your
proposal is feasible. If your core concept is not feasible the whole project falls apart
if you fail. Adding those preliminary data is more convincing than words. If you do
not have the time to include these data, generate them for the interview session in
the case of ERC Starting or Consolidator Grants.
• It is advisable to explicitly mention that the proposed cutting edge methods and
technologies are up and running in your lab or organisation and/or that you can
indeed measure parameters. The panel members tend to be very conservative in
most cases, having difficulties in assessing the feasibility of cutting edge
technologies or experiments within the timeframe of the proposal and whether you
can indeed measure something. If you are a very successful Consolidator or
Advanced Grant applicant as evidenced by scientific achievements in the past, the
panel may believe that you are able to carry out the project within the timeframe of
the proposal but you may not be awarded a very high score for your scientific
proposal. Currently, the panels appreciate it if you also mention your international

and national collaborations in your proposal when these groups increase the
likelihood of success of your project. Please note that these collaborators must be
experts assisting you with minor parts and they are not equal partners. In the end,
the ERC grant is an individual grant and not a collaboration grant;
• Most PI’s have their concept or idea clearly in their mind, but they often fail to set it
out clearly in the proposal. Clarify what the novel concept (basic idea) is behind the
objectives, research questions and/or hypotheses.
• Indicate why this project is timely (thanks to recent developments or data generated
by your group, new technology, etc.). The panels have a problem with selecting the
most relevant and timely project;
• Describe clearly the possible outcomes of this project and what kind of interesting
research you can perform if you are to be successful (in which this grant is a step
but not the end of a research-line and demonstrate the added value of an ERC grant
to your scientific career;
• Draft a clear and well-structured workplan subdividing the activities into for example
work packages, strands, streams, tasks and add milestones and key intermediate
stages. To structure the work plan draft a Gantt chart and consider to add this chart
to your B2 part. Try to use words for these activities (not work packages) that are not
regular words, showing your creativity;
• Draft a detailed and realistic scientific approach/work plan wherein you explain e.g.
what kind of experiments you will carry out and what will be the input including
quality and appropriateness and output of these experiments. Consider carefully
whether all the input into the project is of sufficiently high quality to facilitate the
project and achieve the objectives;
• Provide a rationale for choices made regarding the input, methods, parameters etc.
The panel wants to know why you have made specific choices;
• Provide information about access to data. Panels do not know whether specific data
is available to you, even if this is common knowledge in your field;
• Describe your intellectual and technical environment, including international

collaborations, who offer you “input” into the project such as advices or back-up for
high risk elements. In most cases without requesting funding from the ERC;
• If relevant, for example in engineering proposals, describe the possible utilities, in

social sciences the societal relevant aspects of your proposal or in biotechnology the
industrial applications. If your project is focused on basic research describe potential
utilities in the future;
• Make a clear budget: discuss this with the project administrator of your institute. It is
very important to justify all costs and describe the available intellectual and technical
infrastructure.
• Add wording and sentences to demonstrate that you are enthousiastic about this
proposal.

6 – B1 Cover Page Summary
6. B1 Cover Page Summary14 and Abstract
6.1 B1 Cover Page Summary in 2000 characters

The B1 cover page summary is an essential part of your proposal. This will be the first part
a reviewer will read and where the reviewer’s excitement for the project is sparked..
Besides being the opening page of the proposal, the summary is a tool during the
evaluation discussion in Brussels where panel members not having read your proposal.
familiarise themselves with the proposal to be able to contribute to the panel discussion in
Brussels. This summary has to be written with much care and attention. Each sentence
and word needs to be clearly understandable. Please spend some hours with your
colleagues to tweak the abstract. This summary will most likely be identical to the abstract
in the online A forms.
The ERC mentions in the Information for Applicants that “the abstract should, at a glance,
provide the reader a clear understanding of: the objectives of the proposal and how they
will be achieved” and it should therefore:
• Grasp the reviewer’s attention; the first sentence has to convey the essence of the
proposed research and should indicate what is innovative. This could include a
description of the current challenge(s), the gap in knowledge or understanding, the
urgent or big research question;
• Reflect your research challenge(s) or big research question as well as your

concept/idea and scientific approach/methodology and potential general impact.
Consider whether you should repeat the objectives verbatim as in the proposal or
only mention your main objectives, mission and/or concept in this summary and how
this will be achieved.
• Sketch the characteristics or the uniqueness of your proposal.
• Cover all the essential key elements so that the reviewer can justify to the panel why
this proposal should be selected for funding. In addition, you must optimize the page
structure so that you can add a key picture from your proposal which visualises your
key concept or project. It is much easier to remember a project with a figure on the
cover page depicting the essence of the project than written information.
• Use the additional 1000 characters in case of a cross panel or cross domain project,
see below for more specific information.
There are different approaches to writing the abstract:
Approach 1:
1. Defines the problem, gap of knowledge or urgent research question (“D is one of the
basic unsolved problems of F-research; which makes it up to now impossible to study
X, Y and Z);
2. Explains the new or unconventional scientific approach for solving the problem (ground-
breaking nature); and
3. Finishes by explaining which new horizons may be opened for future research
including for adjacent fields, “….. able to address fundamental questions…..” (Impact).
14. Version 3_0

6 – B1 and Abstract
Approach 2:
The PI has already made a major breakthrough recently.
1. Explains the fundamental questions the PI intends to pursue with regard to this recent
breakthrough in the field of research;
2. Describes the problem and the possibilities of this breakthrough; and
3. Describes the mechanisms and potential impact of the research under the ERC grant
and what new breakthroughs this in turn may effectuate.
Approach 3:
1. Defines the recent state-of-the-art: a new class or phenomenon has been `discovered’;
2. Describes how you will use this new class or phenomenon to conduct research in a
novel way; and
3. Finishes by explaining which new horizons may be opened for future research in terms
of new findings and approaches, “….provide the ingredients needed to investigate
fundamental … associated with ….” (Impact)
6.2 Cross panel box: 1000 characters – Use with Care

Please select carefully the primary panel fitting your project proposal and in particular your
project challenge, idea/concept, scientific approach and potential impact. Please also
select carefully the primary keyword to which your research findings will contribute novel
understanding and insight. Please select only a secondary panel if you are convinced that
the input of the secondary panel will provide crucial information to the primary panel for
assessing the feasibility of the scientific approach.
The reason for cautioning you is that.in most cases we hear that the feedback of the
secondary panel was negative. To address this issue, the ERC has introduced the cross
panel box to the summary, allowing you to explain to the primary and the secondary panel
why you have chosen them respectively as primary and secondary panel. If you choose a
secondary box use this box wisely to ensure that your project is not being transferred from
a primary to a secondary panel. Reasons for transfer are the high workload of the primary
panel or the chair believes the secondary panel has better competence to assess your
proposal in step 1. Please note that the primary panel has always the opportunity in step 2
to call in the expertise of external reviewers having competence on the scientific approach
to assess your proposal.
Therefore, carefully choose your words to indicate clearly to both panels why you have
chosen a primary and a secondary panel.
6.3 A1 Abstract in 2000 characters

The ERC mentions in the Information for Applicants that “the abstract should, at a glance,
provide the reader a clear understanding of: the objectives of the proposal and how they
will be achieved”. The abstract is used by the ERC to find the right external reviewers for
step 2 of the evaluation process.
The fact that this online abstract is used to find external reviewers may change your view
slightly on what kind of information this abstract should contain versus the summary that
you have written. The summary on the cover page is used by the reviewers and in
particular by the other panel members to quickly familiarize themselves with your proposal
before the panel meeting in Brussels.

6 – B1 and Abstract
What is important to realise is that external reviewers have most likely better competence
than the panel members to assess your proposal and in particular the proposed
methodology. In most cases panel members are more generalists having the knowledge to
assess the overall quality of proposals and rank them. Therefore panel members may not
always be able to assess whether the methodology is appropriate for achieving the goals.
Therefore, in order to have the right external reviewer assess your proposal, include
information on the methodological or technological aspects which most likely will inform a
reviewer if s/he is the right person to review this proposal.
The abstract should be non-confidential abstract since the ERC send the abstract to
potential external reviewers to invite them to review the proposal for the ERC. It is
important that the right experts are saying yes to increase the likelihood of adequate
feedback to the panel. Please note that the external referees have to sign a confidentiality
agreement and a no conflict of interest statement before they receive the full proposal in
step 2.
The instruction of the ERC in the Information for Applicants 2017 is that the abstract should
be identical to the cover page.
If you have any confidential information in the cover page summary, the ERC’s instruction
is to shorten the abstract and that may be a disadvantage in finding the right reviewer.
6.4 Final check on summary and abstract

Your final abstract or summary should address:
The concept/approach in relation to the state-of-the-art in a few sentences;

• The main concept of the project with a description of the current challenge or
knowledge gap and the overall aim of the project.
Research and methodology

• The main outcomes/results of this project: for example 1 - 3 main results and impact;
• The scientific approach or key methodology to be used and maybe the mention of
some methods;
• The impact on science and possible utility in the future;
• Any other highlight, in particular the groundbreaking nature and how new horizons
for future research or new research lines or directions may be opened. See also the
former paragraph on “B1 Cover Page Summary”. What you see here is that even
though it seems that the proposals has separate sections, the sections are
interlocking and should be written in parallel. When you are writing the abstract,
please remember that this is your third summary. The first one is the B1a Extended
synopsis and the second one the B1 Cover Page Summary, so you are writing “a
box within a box within a box”
The abstract should be short and precise and not contain confidential information. Try to
submit your final abstract a week before the deadline so the Executive Agency can already
consider which panel member has the core expertise for reading your proposal, increasing
your chances of success.

7 – B1a Extended Synopsis
7. B1a Extended Synopsis

ERC writing instructions in the Information for Applicants and project template 2016:
The Extended Synopsis should give a concise presentation of the scientific proposal, with particular
attention to the ground-breaking nature of the research project, which will allow evaluation panels to
assess, in Step 1 of the evaluation, the feasibility of the outlined scientific approach. Note in the
Information for Applicants: It is important that this extended synopsis contains all relevant
information including the feasibility of the scientific proposal since the panel will only evaluate Part
B1 at step 1.
Describe the proposed work in the context of the state of the art of the field.
References to literature should also be included. Please use a reference style that is commonly
used in your discipline such as American Chemical Society (ACS) style, American Medical
Association (AMA) style, Modern Language Association (MLA) style, etc. and that allows the
evaluators to easily retrieve each reference. References do not count towards the page limits
Due to the one step submission and two step evaluation for ERC Grants, the Extended
Synopsis together with the description on the Principal Investigator (CV, Funding ID and
the Early achievements Track-Record or in the case of ERC Advanced Grant 10-year
Track Record) will determine if the proposal will pass to the second round of evaluation. In
order to get you to this second round you need to be able to present to the evaluators the
ground breaking nature and potential impact of your proposal together with the
feasibility of the Scientific Approach. In other words, why will it be or is it important to
fund your research, what breakthroughs will you create for future research in your own or
neighbouring research field(s), how will you do it (strategy, scientific approach,
methodology and feasibility), why now and why you?
The evaluation questions relevant for the Extended Synopsis:

Scientific Excellence: Ground-breaking nature, Ambition and Feasibility

3. To what extent is the proposed research high-risk / high-gain?
Scientific Approach
4. To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible bearing in mind that the proposed
research is high-risk / high-gain.
7.1 Intrigue:
The instruction for writing the B1a Extended Synopsis directly refers to the B2 “The
extended synopsis should be a concise presentation of the scientific proposal” with no
further instruction to what kind of headers should be contained in this five page document.
Therefore without studying the B2 it is actually impossible to write an informative and
inspiring B1a.
• Significance and outcomes: ERC panels are selecting proposals generating

insight and understanding. Decide what kind of knowledge will your project generate
to address the major challenge or big research question? Emphasize your answer to
the “So What is it that we Must Understand” for conceptual knowledge or research
question or the “So What is it that we Must Know before we Can Do” for more

15
applied knowledge or research question . Re-iterate based on the [So What] to
further evaluate the information to the bullets below. When you have decided what
kind of knowledge you will mainly generate, we advise you to assess which panel is
fitting your proposal and check what kind of projects the panels have been selecting
in the past.
• Formulate your project idea. How will you address the challenge or research
question? What makes your project idea unconventional in view of the state-of-the-
art and your competitors? Discuss your project idea with your colleagues at your
institution or outside, with experts in your field and outside. It takes time to tweak a
project concept and certainly to develop a project idea that is based on sound
science and leading to a major impact.
• Groundbreaking nature and impact: Consider the cascade effect of things; any
weak points in the project idea or research question will trickle down to your
objectives and to the technical details of your work plan. Therefore, while the project
concept and/or research question should yield novel insights and understanding for
your research area, it must also have a potential impact on other research areas of
the same panel and/or of other panels. If the impact is mostly for your research area
only, than reviewers will find the project of groundbreaking nature but lacking
potential impact. For the panel it is important that the groundbreaking research has
broad, wide reaching impact, by contributing significantly to our current insight and
understanding.
• Asking the right question or having the right project idea is a step in the right
direction, but without a novel concept will have trouble to understand why you are
“The Scientist” who is able to answer this important question. The next step is to
conceptualise your project idea or research question. What novel concept,
paradigm, framework or theory will your project generate? And how unconventional,
innovative or original is this novel concept in view of the state of the art and what
other research groups are doing? The panels are selecting those projects that are
significantly contributing to our current knowledge and understanding. We realise
that through the flux of words such as significant, groundbreaking etc being used in
literature it is not easy to assess what is sufficient novel for the ERC panels. The
ERC gives more information on it in the instructions for writing: novel or
unconventional aspects.
• Ask yourself the question why has the research not been done before? Achieving
the potential breakthrough indicated in the project concept or research question
requires a new “direction/twist”, that makes your project innovative, Explain carefully
to the reviewers the innovative parts of your project in view of the state-of-the-art
and what others are doing to assist the reviewers in determining whether your
project is novel, innovative, original, unconventional, groundbreaking, challenging
and going into a new direction leading to major impact on your research field and
adjacent research fields and is NOT ongoing or incremental research;
• Clarify and capture in words -and perhaps in a visualization- How the novel
concept, approach or development underpins the Overarching Aim or Big Research
Question; the proposal is focused on the Overarching Aim or Research Question,
but what is unique about your approach?
• Be ambitious in your scientific goals, but also realistic. Ambitious: carry out only
the most relevant part of a research project leading to the biggest impact or added
value for novel research opportunities; Realistic: build in milestones/key intermediate
15
A Manual for writers of research papers, theses and dissertations, Kate L. Turabian, eighth edition.

goals which yield already important outcomes although not being the high-gain
covered by your ambition.
• Indicate why this project is timely (thanks to recent developments or data

generated by your group, new technology etc). The panels have problems in
selecting the most relevant and timely project. (This point may not always be
applicable for all fields)
7.2 Convince
• Feasibility (evaluation question 4 above): already in B1a Extended Synopsis
present a full layout of the work-plan. Cluster sets of activities, describe “What”
these activities are and provide sufficient technical, scholarly, and scientific detail so
that the reviewers can understand “How” this will be done. Explain for example the
key experiments or case studies to be carried out. What key methods/techniques etc
you have hands-on experience with; which methods are up and running in your lab
or organisation. Explain also what part of the scientific approach is feasible and
based on what: facts, preliminary data, circumstantial evidence, your experience and
expertise, assumptions? Most “science” panels are not selecting projects that are
solely based on assumptions or speculations. Panel members have difficulties in
assessing the potential feasibility of cutting edge technologies or experiments and
need therefore to be reassured about your capacities in handling these. But they
also need to know whether the work-plan can be conducted within the timescale of 5
years and if indeed there will be interesting findings and outcomes.
• The focus will be on high gain and high risk projects. The ERC is favouring
projects that provide significant advances for the field and which is not a logical
continuation of on-going research ore just an incremental step in research. ERC
assumes that high-gains can only be achieved through a novel concept, novel
approach in combination with methodological developments across disciplines,
deviating from research in the past. Thanks to the increased quality of the project
proposals and the criterion for potential feasibility of the scientific approach, panels
are currently selecting projects with high risk elements with underpinning proof about
potential feasibility, mitigating some high risk elements. In panel comments these
projects are referred to as sufficient mature project. Analyse what are the risky parts,
how are these parts interdependent on other parts of your proposal. Describe these
risks and identify their nature and write convincingly why you believe you can
overcome the potential high risks, especially in the first few years of the project.
• Present your preliminary evidence that demonstrates that you are potentially able
to address the question; present your evidence that your concept, approach or the
novel development across disciplines is potentially effective in answering this
question. The preliminary results should demonstrate that the core concept of your
proposal is feasible. If your core concept is not feasible the whole project falls apart
if you fail. If you expect better data after submission, make sure to include these for
your interview session (ERC Starting or Consolidator Grants). In humanities panels
the evidence may be based on indirect facts.
• Address the high-risks and present contingency / back up/ alternative plans for
these high-risks.
• References: Make sure to include the key references to the state of the art. Include
some self-references to demonstrate that you are an important contributor to the
state of the art.
• Provide a rationale for choices made regarding input, methods, parameters etc.
The panel wants to know why you have made specific choices;

• Provide information about access to data. Panels do not know whether specific data
is available to you, even if this is common knowledge in your field;
• Describe your intellectual and technical environment including international

collaborations offering you “input” into the project or as part of the back-up plan for
the high risk elements in your project;
• Collaborators or rather Experts can increase the likelihood of success of your project
for those parts that are high-risk. Experts should be named and their role should be
limited in time, duration and conceptual influence. Therefore the expert needed are
assisting you with minor parts and their contribution and role need to be scientifically
justified. They are not equal partners. In the end the ERC grant is an individual grant
and not a collaboration grant.
• Why you: Add an explanation indicating that you have the right set of competences
and experiences to undertake this challenge(s) or research question(s) and have
been contributing to the current state of the art. Reassure the panel that the
challenge is ambitious for you but not overambitious. Therefore include in your
references to the B1a also some self-references. In combination with your
preliminary evidence it will provide the reviewers confidence in the potential
feasibility of a high-risk/high-gain project.
7.3 Inspire
• Conclude with a summary of the groundbreaking or unconventional
results/outcomes which in themselves would be worthwhile for the community.
These results should be realistic. The second set of results are the high-gain
outcomes which are the high-risk outcomes and therefore uncertain if these will be
obtained. The panels will not fund a project that only promises high-gains because
of the uncertainty due to the high-risks but a project based on only groundbreaking
results will not be funded because of its limited impact. Therefore clearly distinguish
for the reviewer what the groundbreaking results are and what the high-gain
outcomes could be for science, engineering or scholarship. This “scientific” impact is
the fundamental impact the reviewers need to be inspired about. Secondary impact
(which should be described as a few lines only!) is for example utilization for
engineering and chemical project and policy impact for project in social sciences etc.
7.4 Practical points:
The opening paragraph

Part of the Storyboard (see previous chapter) is that you make an outline on how you
allocated your five pages to the different items to be discussed. It may seem obvious that
you need an opening paragraph but the question is what the nature of the opening
paragraph should be for an ERC project in particular when you take into account that the
page before the opening paragraph is the cover page containing the summary of 2000
characters. Therefore think twice how you start your opening and how irritating it may be if
this is a repetition of the cover page. There are many ways to start such paragraph from
the state of the art as a traditional opening to immediately starting with the challenge. It
does not matter how you start as long as you keep in mind that you need to create
scientific excitement for your proposal.

Do not repeat yourself within the B1a, but discuss your project idea from different
angles.
The B1a is only a five page document. In most cases there is no need to introduce what
kind of information or structure the reviewers can expect to find in this document. The
reviewers expect a focused story that lives up to the standards of an ERC proposal which
is a proposal that explains an exciting scientific/scholarly or technical project.
There is a difference between how proposals are being assessed by panels. In most cases
this is related to the number of proposals on the stack in step 1 and 2. Panels with 40-60
proposals on the stack can take their time to read the Extended Synopsis. Panels with a lot
of proposals on the stack select proposals mainly based on the impression of the first page
of the Extended Synopsis. Therefore in these panels the first sentence, first paragraph and
first page of the Extended Synopsis are key and needs to contain the core message of B1a
part. If the panel members understand the first page and you caught their attention in the
stack of proposals you have a fair chance to pass to step 2.
Most important information for the first page of Life Sciences proposals is what is the
important challenge, what is your project idea and why, what is different in view of what
others are doing and what are the objectives and potential impact. The B1a for life
sciences needs already to contain sufficient information on the preliminary data or proof of
concept. Please note that seeing the results in a figure, graphic or table is more convincing
than reading “results have been obtained”.
As an example about what to avoid:

• Opening paragraph with the promise that the reader will read a challenging proposal
[instead be direct about the challenge];
• Introduction on the state of the art followed by a description of the state of the art
[instead after providing the challenge explain what the current frontiers are and how
you will go significantly beyond this and perhaps demonstrate here your preliminary
results];
• Introduction with an overview of the objective, followed by a work-plan per objective
in the field of social sciences and humanities where panel members take their time
to read each page since they have not so many proposals on the stack [instead
guide the reader through each objective including work-plan, readers are perfectly
able to pick up that this is detailing 3 or 4 objectives – no need to list these first] etc.
Draft a concise summary of the B2 part, covering gap of knowledge, concept/idea (the
concept is in most panels important), objectives, state-of-the-art, scientific approach,
feasibility, impact and utility, your commitment to this project and a few sentences about
existing and requested resources. Preferably 4 pages to give you space to add figures and
expand some parts in view of the selection criterion.
Use white space and add figures so the panel members are not flooded with too much
information per page.
Make sure that you check from time to time if your B1a Extended Synopsis, A-form abstract and
Cover page summary still are in line with the B2 part!

8 – B1 The Principal Investigator
8. B1 The Principal Investigator

See chapter “Evaluation” for a detailed understanding of each the of the evaluation
questions presented in the table below.
The evaluation criteria, ERC Work Programme 2017

To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to propose and conduct ground-breaking
research?
To what extent does the PI provide abundant evidence of creative independent thinking?
To what extent have the achievements of the typically gone beyond the state-of-the-art?
execution and the willingness to devote a significant amount of time to the project (min 50%
(Starting) or 40% (Consolidator) of the total working time on it and min 50% in an EU Member
State or Associated Country) (based on the full Scientific Proposal)
8.1 Provide detailed information to your reviewers

How good your track record needs to be, depends on the competition per call, your project
topic and how good your project concept is. We see that the project concept and the
quality of the project is the most important part of the selection procedure in the most
recent calls. Where in the first calls the track record of the PI was leading in the selection
of proposals, the panels are currently discussing the scientific quality in step 1. This is
good news since it increases the chances for every applicant, provided the scientific quality
is high.
What is crucial for your track record is that your publications (articles, books, book
chapters, conference proceedings) have strong international visibility and that you are (or
well on your way to become) a well-recognized researcher. For the most recent
publications the number of citations is not crucial but the ranking of journals in your field is.
Having invitations to give lectures at workshops, regional conferences or universities may
be good for very young scientists but the goal is to become more substantial over the
years and include key note lectures at international conferences and workshops or
prestigious invited lectures at universities. In other words you must as a starter have the
potential to become an international leading researcher in your field and as consolidator
you should already be establishing such position where as an advanced grant applicant
you should have this already established at the moment of application.
So the best way of finding out whether you are competitive is to look at the bench mark for
provided in the work programme. Due to the broad definition of the research field per panel
it is sometimes difficult for the panel members to assess the scientific potential of the
applicant. Therefore consider to include:
A short scientific autobiography or Research Motivation: the purpose is to provide the

reviewers a better understanding into how you have been able to gain the different
methodological, technical etc skills needed for this project and if you have an
interdisciplinary background clarify this. You can achieve this also by writing a section in
your CV about your research motivation or in the Extended Synopsis.
A narrative highlighting scientific achievements: The difference is that in this

paragraph of the track record your focus is on the groundbreaking results you have
obtained.

Panel members make use in their assessment of the quality of young scientists as
potential scientific leaders of criteria that are mostly subconscious but never the less
important, like: Master or PhD degree with academic distinction, international mobility
(especially to USA, UK, Germany or France in the past for PE and LS panels), worldwide
ranking of current and past affiliates, impact factor of journals, citations per article, H-index
and/or g-index or ranking of publishing houses in case of books, invitations to give a key
note or plenary lecture at conferences.
8.2 Your pathway to excellence: from Waltz to Foxtrot

In 2014 the ERC commissioned a report, ERCCAREERS, on gendered career paths of
ERC grantees and applicants by Claartje Vinkenburg. The following is an extraction of the
16
interview conducted by Tania Rabesandratana , freelance science writer/contributing
correspondent for Science, with Vinkeburg the PI of the commissioned project. “It is
important to realize that excellence is in every career pattern. There's not one way,”
17
Vinkenburg says. “Our data clearly shows career patterns vary, and what is generally
considered conventional or typical may actually not be much more common than other less
conventional paths.” Early-career scientists should not shy away from applying for
prestigious grants just because they think they have an atypical career path. “You can
have an excellent [research] idea while taking care of seven kids or [looking after] a sick
parent, or being in the lab 24 hours a day,” she tells Science Careers. “It [shouldn't] matter
how you got there.”
Vinkenburg and her team identified five career patterns for Starting Grants applicants that
she classified as 1- Tango; 2- Foxtrot; 3- Slow Waltz; 4- Quickstep; 5- Viennese Waltz.
Career profiles StG and CoG Advanced
Viennese Waltz: Steadily progressing university career V V
Slow Waltz: Repeated postdocs V -
Quick step: Rapid promotions V -
Foxtrot: Steady progress within research institutes V V
Tango: Complicated moves within and outside academia, V V
including transitions in and out of employment
Jive: Steady progress in state-funded research institutes V
Waltz: Saturation” level has been reached in their university V
career with not much time left for another move
When focusing on Starting Grants applicants, Vinkenburg and her team found,
unsurprisingly, that the two patterns most commonly perceived as impressive in career
terms—Quickstep and Foxtrot—were indeed the most successful in winning a grant. While
the overall success rate for Starting Grant applicants (in the sample studied) was 18%,
success rates for Quickstep and Foxtrot candidates were around 24%. But the good news,
and the study's main finding, is that ERC has been detecting and rewarding excellence in
each of the career choreographies. For example, the less conventional Tango patterns
showed success rates of around 13%—significantly lower than for Quickstep and Foxtrot
but higher than might have been expected if grantees were selected strictly according to
old-fashioned norms. “This means you can be excellent while making complicated career
moves across various settings or while in postdoc position number five” (for Slow Waltz
dancers), Vinkenburg explains.
One take-home message from the study is that it can be helpful to understand career
conventions, which differ across disciplines and countries, even if you strictly don't follow
them. That means knowing what career moves are considered successful in your field:
16. Tania Rabesandratana is a freelance science writer/contributing correspondent for Science. She is based in Brussels.
10.1126/science.caredit.a1400200
17. The ERC commissioned, called “Capturing gendered career paths of ERC grantees and applicants” (ERCAREER),
attempts to “map the road to excellence,” says Vinkenburg, the project's PI. Vinkenburg conducted an online survey, of
more than 1000 ERC applicants (737 from Advanced Grants competitions and 332 from Starting Grants competitions).

spending a research stint abroad, going back to your Ph.D. institution, or moving from a
university to a private research body, perhaps. With this knowledge, “you can then
consciously choose to be less conventional or even unconventional if it fits your life [or]
preference, rather than finding out later on that you missed a crucial junction because of
ignorance or naivety,” Vinkenburg advises.
Remark by Yellow Research based on recent call results. Please note that the career
pathways have not been linked to the kind of project proposals submitted. If the
competition in a field is very high the PI’s with a smooth career and sufficiently proactive
may have a higher chance to obtain an ERC grant. So use this knowledge also to carve
out your research niche.

9 – B1b Curriculum Vitae (max 2 pages):
9. B1b Curriculum Vitae (max 2 pages):

ERC draft template 2017: The ERC has provided a CV template which is not 100% in line with the
expectations of the panel members who are looking for brilliant researchers.
In FP7 this was a free format where the focus of the panels was on proof of experience,
identifying scientific leadership (potential) and international recognized scientists based upon
provided standard academic and research record, as well as a succinct 'funding ID' which must
specify any current research grants and their subject, as well as any ongoing application for work
related to the proposal.
Therefore check the provided template of 2017 against these major focus points of reviewers in the
past.
In many panels the reviewers are looking for at least 2-5 major publications depending on
your stage of career. The research field determines what a major publication is: a
publication in a major interdisciplinary scientific journal with a high impact factor, high
number of citations, a worldwide recognized conference proceeding or a monograph.
Subsequently, they assess your role in this achievement and the impact on the research
field. How many achievements and major impacts are needed for a high score depends on
the competition per panel. A rule of thumb for a Starter is a major achievement during the
PhD period and 1-2 others during the first and/or second postdoc period in most cases
sufficient. It is very important to clarify your role and contributions in publications with your
PhD supervisor or even with your postdoc supervisor. Applicants without any “mobility”
have a hard time in demonstrating their independency of their “former” PhD supervisor.
ERC draft template 2017 Personal information

Family name, First name:
Researcher unique identifier(s) (such as ORCID, Scopus ID, Research ID, etc....):
Date of birth:
URL for web site:
YR tips: Update your website as soon as you have submitted the proposal. We hear from
applicants that they see a peak of visits during the ERC evaluation process. Consider to
add a picture of yourself to the CV. Many people remember faces but not names. It is not
necessary to provide address details as street, telephone number, e-mail address etc.
ERC draft template 2017 Education

200? PhD Name of Faculty/Department, Name of University/ Institution, Country, Name of PhD
supervisor
199? Master Name of Faculty/ Department, Name of University/ Institution, Country
YR tips: Consider to add:

4. The title of the theses to show in which field you have been active;
5. The name of your PhD supervisor in view of the requirement to present it least one
(Starting) or several (Consolidator) major paper(s) without your PhD supervisor to
demonstrate your independency;
6. Please add –if applicable- any distinctions or honours to your titles.
7. Consider to add important courses and modules you have attended to demonstrate
your capacity and expertise to run the project. Check also the annex of the ERC Work
Programme regarding MD title. In most countries the MD title does not give you the

right to carry out research in the laboratory, except for countries as Germany. So use
your national title for MD and not “MD”, for example arts, lege etc.
ERC draft template 2017 current and previous positions

CURRENT POSITION(S)
200? - Current Position, Name of Faculty/ Department, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
200? - Current Position, Name of Faculty/ Department, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
PREVIOUS POSITIONS
200? -200? Position held, Name of Faculty/Department, Name of University/Institution/Country
200? -200? Position held, Name of Faculty/Department, Name of University/Institution/Country
YR tips: List all your current and past positions and if applicable also the names of the
research leaders if world-wide known. It is important to show that you have been able to
propose and carry out research independently of PhD supervisor and the university where
you defended your PhD degree. From 2011 call there may even be issues with strong
postdoc supervisors. On the other hand you would also like to demonstrate that you have
been working with the best researchers in the world. Highlight if you did not bring along
your own money for a postdoc position at another university (sign of being already
recognized). Highlight any country to country and workplace mobility detailing and the kind
of research you have been carrying out in the past and the major scientific achievements.
Consider providing information that does not fit into the other sections. Highlight if you are
supervising or have supervised a PhD student or postdoc at another university (in some
cases involving dual appointment).
Demonstrate international (country to country) mobility in particular any US

experience when you apply for the PE or LS domain as well as many of the SH panels.
When applying for scientific grants in the field of physics and engineering and life sciences
a hidden evaluation criterion pops up: US, UK, Germany or France experience. In a review
conducted by the ERC on 1.100 submitted CV’s it turned out that US experience increased
the success rate for female applicants by 40%. In 2007 call all applicants had US
experience, except for French laureates. Currently the panels are also selecting applicants
having a European track record and in the recent calls even a national track record. If you
lack such “mythical US or European experience” tweak your CV to impress reviewers with
other experiences (short stay visits that led to publications, continued collaboration after
short stay, joint grant applications, joint supervision of students) etc.
Include a Research Motivation or Scientific autobiography where you explain in a

short narrative what the important (scientific, scholarly, technical, engineering)
competences are that you have gained that will enable you to carry out the grant as you
have proposed.
ERC draft template 2017 Fellowships:

200? -200? Name of Faculty/ Department/Centre, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
199? -199? Scholarship, Name of Faculty/ Centre, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
YR tips: Provide –if applicable - information on the importance of the fellowship and why
you have received it. Consider to include the success rates.
ERC draft template 2017 supervision graduate students and postdoctoral fellows
200? -200? Number of Postdocs/ PhD/ Master Students
Name of Faculty/ Department/ Centre, Name of University/ Institution/ Country

YR tips: Add how many graduated and how many ongoing. If you have supervised or are
supervising students or fellows at other/different universities, indicate that. It is very
important that you demonstrate your experience with supervision of (PhD) students
because the ERC panels hesitate to award grants to applicants without any formal or
informal supervision experience. In some countries you have not the right to be an official
supervisor but you may be the daily supervisor or co-supervisor. Explain in these cases the
policy at your institute. If you have no experience with supervision, consider how you can
demonstrate to the panel that you are able to manage this ERC project. You may also
consider adding information about your capacity to inspire young scientists to pursue an
academic career by listing where these students are currently working as postdocs or
permanent staff members.
ERC draft template 2017 teaching – if applicable

200? - Teaching position-Topic, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
200? - 200? Teaching position-Topic, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
YR tip: Teaching is evidence of recognition by your peers. But panel members tell us that
too much teaching is an indication that you are not a “researcher”, so just provide only the
best examples such as new curriculum or cutting edge education.
ERC draft template 2017 organisation of scientific meetings – if applicable

201? Please specify your role and the name of event, Country
200? Please specify type of event, number of participants, Country
YR tips: Organising workshops or conferences etc is a proof of international recognition.

Provide information on what your role has been, for example initiating a workshop, being
member of the scientific committee for a conference, chairing a session etc.
ERC draft template 2017 Institutional Responsibilities

201? - Faculty member, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
201? -201? Graduate Student Advisor, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
200? -200? Member of the Faculty Committee, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
200? -200? Organizer of the Internal Seminar, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
200? -200? Member of a Committee, role, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
ERC draft template 2017 Commissions of Trust – if applicable

201? - Scientific Advisory Board, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
201? - Review Board, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
201? - Review panel member, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
201? - Editorial Board, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
200? - Scientific Advisory Board, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
200? - Reviewer, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
200? - Scientific Evaluation, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
200? - Evaluator, Name of University/ Institution/ Country
YR tips: Probably the ERCEA is referring to the name of the journals and funding agencies
in case of reviewing and editorial activities. Consider to add the frequency of these
activities in terms of number of reviews conducted on average per year.

ERC draft template 2017 memberships of scientific societies– if applicable

201? - Member, Research Network "Name of Research Network"
200? - Associated Member, Name of Faculty/ Department/Centre, Name of University/
Institution/ Country
200? - Funding Member, Name of Faculty/ Department/Centre, Name of University/ Institution/
Country
YR tip: In some cases a membership is based on an invitation.
ERC draft template 2017 major collaborations

Name of collaborators, Topic, Name of Facu1ty /Department/Centre, Name of University/
Institution/ Country
YR tips: List the institutes with whom you are collaborating, especially on international
level. Indicate also whether you have any joint papers with these groups by adding “x joint
papers”. Please realize that if you provide the names of the collaborators these
collaborators may not be asked to review your proposal.
Due to the nature of many SH proposals with a great number of case studies undertaken in
different countries, panel members want to see if you have a network that can be
supportive of the project as a co-supervisor, advisory board member or expert. In case of
SH panels the panels appreciate advisory boards with internationally recognized scholars,
or those being invited to participate in workshops discussing the research of the project
etc. If you have a short track record, this strategy may increase the feasibility of your
project.
In the case of PE and LS projects the panel assesses positively the availability of external
experts who can assist with carrying out cutting edge technologies, method or delivering
high quality material, models, data etc.
ERC draft template 2017 career breaks – if applicable

Exact dates Please indicate the reason and the duration in months.
YR tips: Describe also any significant career breaks or/and unconventional scientific
career paths, including maternal leaves. Be factual, all panel members are group leaders
and have experience with why scientists are confronted with career breaks.
9.1 Other topics you may consider to add to the CV.

Interests and/or expertise and knowledge: Provide information on your main interests to
demonstrate that you are the right person for the project and/or describe your expertise
and knowledge and/or your contribution and role in the past or in the current position.
Main achievements: Consider to add a description of your main achievements in the CV,
or in the CV appendix containing the list of funding or to the list of papers.
Importance of the grant to your career: In the 2017 call this is not a selection criterion
but you may consider providing your vision on the new directions in research and your
personal ambition in working at these new frontiers.
Independence: Demonstrating independence is very important. We see currently that the

panels are looking for true independence, not only being independent of PhD supervisor

(working at another host institute) but also of strong postdoc supervisors. If the panel
doubts your independence they will not award you the grant. Therefore you need to clarify
your independence by describing your role and contribution to past achievements. If the
current “boss” is co-publishing on your papers you have to clarify the reason or policy et,
but more importantly you have to clarify your personal responsibility for the research and
the outcomes.
Most likely you have space left for other information to convince the reviewers that you are
a brilliant researcher. Some applicants add descriptions of past research activities or past
managerial activities. Others add analysis of their publications and citations per year,
demonstrating that they are becoming more productive and recognized every year.
It may also be an option to list here other activities as guest editorships, member of
editorial boards of journals and/or books, reviewing activities for national/international
funding or for scientific journals or conference proceedings, role in institution building etc.

10 – B1b Appendix Funding ID
10. B1b Appendix Funding ID

Funding ID is indicating what ongoing and submitted grants and funding you have. Since
2014 there is a template provided for the Funding ID.
ERC instructions: “All ongoing and submitted grants and funding of the PI (Funding ID)
The headings of the table are mandatory information but the table itself is not mandatory.
Does not count towards page limits.”
Project title Funding Amounts Period Role PI Relation to the

Source ERC proposal
Provide information on your current funding ID (ongoing funding and submitted

proposals) and list separately your past funding, if relevant etc. List also your
collaborations in this section. Please be aware that even though there is no page limit for
this section, panel members will expect a one or two page document only. Consider what
other information you can add to these grants, as for example major outcomes and impact
or your role.
• List any funding of projects that will run in parallel to your ERC project. Explain how
your ERC application is different from your other projects. Be aware of the
dangerous effect that may occur when you have already received funding on the
same topic as the ERC application or have applied for national funding for the same
topic: The reviewers may perceive your project as ongoing research or an
incremental step in research. Therefore explain why this funding was important in
obtaining preliminary evidence on the high-risk parts of your ERC proposal. Be sure
to explain the relation of your previous funding to your ERC proposal in terms as
synergistic or complementary to specific parts of your ERC proposal.
• List separately your past funding obtained, if relevant etc. Reviewers of personal
grants look for this information as proof of your capacity to attract funding for your
research. Therefore mention the total amount of funding obtained as well as
information per grant obtained.
• Explain the added value of the ERC grant to your career and research. When you
have currently a lot of funding, explain how you will guarantee your commitment to
this ERC project, by for example hiring a postdoc to take care of the supervision of
the other projects.

11 – B1c Early achievements track-Record (max 2 pages):
11. B1c Early achievements track-Record (max 2 pages):

In the work programme 2017 the profiles of a Starter and Consolidator are described as follows:
The applicant should list his/her activity as regards:
• Publications in major international peer-reviewed multi-disciplinary scientific journals and/or in
the leading international peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed conferences proceedings and/or
monographs of their respective research fields, highlighting 5 (starters) and 10 (consolidators)
representative publications, those without the presences as co-author of their PhD supervisor,
and the number of citations (excluding self-citations) they have attracted. (if applicable)
• Granted patent(s) (if applicable).
• Invited presentations to peer-reviewed, internationally established conferences and/or
international advanced schools (if applicable).
• Prizes and Awards and Academic Memberships (if applicable).
11.1 The benchmarks

Before discussing how to draft this section we want to draw your attention to the
benchmark the ERC has set out for young scientists. In the Work Programme 2017 call the
benchmark for the applicants is described:
A competitive Starting / Consolidator Grant PI must have already shown the potential for
research independence and evidence of maturity. For example it is expected that the applicant will
have produced at least one (starters) / several (consolidators) important publication(s) as
main author or without the participation of their PhD supervisor.
Applicants should also be able to demonstrate a promising track-record of early achievements
appropriate to their research field and career stage, including significant publications (as main
author) in major international peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journals, or in the leading
international peer-reviewed journals of their respective field. They may also demonstrate a record of
invited presentations in well-established international conferences, granted patents, awards, prizes
etc.
A competitive Consolidator Grant PI must have already shown the potential for research
independence and evidence of maturity. For example it is expected that the applicant will have
produced several important publication without the participation of their PhD supervisor.
Applicants should also be able to demonstrate a promising track-record of early achievements
appropriate to their research field and career stage, including significant publications (as main
author) in major international peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journals, or in the leading
international peer-reviewed journals of their respective field. They may also demonstrate a record of
invited presentations in well-established international conferences, granted patents, awards, prizes
etc.
The list of bench marks is less demanding than in the first two calls due to the introduction
of two streams: Starting (2 to 7 years after PhD or 4-9 years after MD) and Consolidators
(7 – 12 years after PhD or 9-14 years after MD). The ERC is looking for young and mid-
career scientists who may become the future topnotch researchers and/or leaders in their
research field.
Potential for research independence

Try to define what in your case could be seen as a proof of research independence. This
may probably be a combination of things. In most cases your publications without your
PhD supervisor are a good demonstration of independence. At least one publication
without your supervisor is mandatory but in some panels this bar is set at 1-3 major
publications before a panel accepts your research independence. If you are a consolidator
the panel is looking for several independent scientific achievements in the past. In the case

of systematic (and continuous) publications with your daily supervisor, clarify after listing a
selection of your best publication what your contribution was. Write this clarification in such
a way that it is clear that you are the expert. Draw the attention to publications by your PhD
students or postdocs etc. Also be critical of publications with your postdoc supervisor
because in some panels this will not be see as proof of independence.
In case of any doubt about your independence add some wording about your role and
contribution to a paper. My role: responsible for attracting funding, for idea/concept, PhD
supervision, experiments, analysis, writing paper. Indicate whether you are the main and/or
corresponding author or whether “your” PhD student or postdoc is main author
Consider publications based upon results obtained through research conducted abroad.
Several short time visits to the same group leading to interesting publications could also be
seen as proof of independence and mobility experience. Being asked frequently as
speaker (key-note lecture) at international conferences, could complete the picture of
research independence.
11.2 Publications
Opening paragraph
In particular when drafting this section there is a word of caution. Although you may expect
that every reviewer fully understands the instructions of the Information for Applicants and
therefore the structure of your proposal and the criteria against which the proposal must be
assessed, this may be not completely true. Panel chairs know the proposal structure and
evaluation criteria inside out because they come together to discuss this. The other panel
members come only to Brussels for the consensus meeting and are literally much more
remote from the details as why the proposal is structured as it is. Therefore explain in B1c
the logic of the order in which you present requested information on your publications. If in
your field conference proceedings or monographs are more important than publications in
scientific journals or books, make such statement as opening paragraph and list it than as
the first item.
Opening paragraph 2
Space is limited to 2-pages for this section. Therefore start with stating the number of total
publications and if applicable the number of citations. If you do not provide these numbers
you run the risk that reviewers have missed the fact that your list contains only a selection
of your publications and conclude that the presented publications are too meager. Don’t
trust reviewers to calculate any totals of the different categories of publications listed.
Please also provide the source of the data, because the panel is checking this data.
After listing the total numbers of publications, present the totals for each sub-section of
publications
As a consolidator: include the number of publications as a main author, a last author, a

supervisor and as a co-author. If applicable in your field state how many publications in a
journal with an impact factor higher than x, your h-index or g-index and other information
demonstrating your intellectual capacity and creativity. Include per publication information
on the journal impact factor and citations. In case of increasing number of papers and
citations per year you can also add the Web of Science or Scopus chart with papers and
citations per year demonstrating your scientific development.
Source of bibliometric data

Which source you use for providing your bibliometric data depends on the publication
procedure in your field. If you mainly publish articles in peer reviewed journals you use

Web of Science or Scopus. If you publish conference proceedings and articles in peer
reviewed journals you could consider using Google Scholar for the total citations of
conference proceedings and articles in peer reviewed journals AND Web of Science or
Scopus for the articles in peer reviewed journals. If you publish mainly books or
monographs you use Google Scholar but check whether you are becoming visible using
Web of Science or Scopus. In some fields you use other databases as Inspire or NASA.
Do not forget to mention the source of your bibliometric data. The good news is that when
the panel members check your bibliometric data in step 1 or step 2 your citations and H-
index have already gone up. If you have an up going line you can also consider adding a
citations graph to your EATR.
Presenting your selection

In the ERC call for 2017 you are required to list up to 5 major papers as a starter. Select
those 5 papers that are demonstrating your intellectual capacity and creative thinking and
led to international attention/recognition. Include per publication information on the journal
impact factor and citations. Provide per publication more information as main and/or
corresponding author, the outcome, impact, your role (see former page for independency
proof), your contribution etc. If you list 5 papers you have plenty space to explain why
these papers demonstrate your groundbreaking contributions to the field.
When you are a Consolidator you are asked to list up to 10 major papers. List those
publications that demonstrate your skills and experience with the methodology/project;
previous research that led to groundbreaking results. Include publications that attracted
significant recognition; publications in high impact journals; publications that demonstrate
that you are the PI for this project because of your main authorship and/or corresponding
authorship. If possible highlight the 10 selected papers by pointing out to the reviewers
what your major contribution was to each of these papers.
If you have more publications than that you are asked to list, list these without the
explanatory highlight or insert a web link to your homepage with all other publications in
your CV section. If you have space left, describe the important outcomes of a publication in
more detail, especially if the title is not self-explanatory or explain your role or contribution
in more detail etc.
If you are working in the field of software or humanities list conference proceedings,
monographs, chapters in national or international books etc.
The Information for Applicants states on page 35-36 that you have to provide the number
of citations without self-citations per publication. If you have too few citations list the
citations with self-citations and the source of data. If citations are not applicable in your
field, elaborate on the attracted attention and/or recognition and how this impacted your
career.
Publication sub-sections
List items in standard bibliographic form, classified by subsection
Indicate your name by making it for example bold. Explain what 1st author position means
in your field. In some fields the order of authors is alphabetical, in others fields hierarchal
or in the field of life sciences depending on who carried out the work and who is
responsible. We often see many variations even within one particular field.
Examples of publications are:
• peer reviewed publications in international journals

• peer reviewed international conference proceedings, see also further below

• In books; Indicate if you have been the sole author, co-author, editor or co-editor of
the book
• In book chapters
• In press, meaning that the publication has been accepted for publication
• In progress (to be published); highly debatable if you should do this because it may
back fire in the review.
11.3 (Granted) Patents

Patents are an indication of your creativity and your contribution to industrial innovation.
Many applicants list also their patent application. If a patent application or patent has
entered the national phase, you can also mention the countries where the patent rights
have been applied for. If applicable include also information whether the patent has been
successfully licensed to a company and/or used for a product or a service.
If you add the above information you demonstrate to the reviewers of personal grants that
others trust your results and invest in this. Patents in general are seen as a proof of
originality and novel thinking.
Technology/Software. Just as patents technology and software applications can be seen

as a demonstration of your creativity. If you have developed software, mention the number
of downloads or use.
11.4 Invited presentations to peer-reviewed, internationally established

conferences
Not every ERC grant holder has invited lectures. The idea is that you provide evidence of
international recognition and visibility. List every important conference where you have
given an important lecture. What is important depends on your scientific field. If you have
no invitations as a key note lecturer at an international conference list all other invitations
to (inter)national workshops etc. If you attend conferences with conference proceedings,
try to highlight that your proceeding has been selected every year for a presentation at
prestigious conferences in your field. You may consider linking these invitations to the
publication list, showing what papers led to which international recognition.
Please note that International Advanced Schools are not equal to universities but are
graduate or postgraduate schools.
You may consider adding lectures given at workshops, satellite meetings or

seminars/lectures at universities and add a reference to your website where the rest is
listed.
11.5 Prizes and Awards

You can list international and national prizes and awards. List all international prizes and
awards and if possible also the prestigious national prizes/awards with an explanation
describing why this national award is important. Not all awards are known across Europe
and the world.
11.6 Other
Other not requested information: Research expeditions, contributions to the career of
young scientists as supervisor if not mentioned in the CV etc. You can also list this
information in the CV (B1b part).

12 – B1c 10 Years track record (max 2 pages):
12. B1c 10 Years track record (max 2 pages):

In the ERC Work Programme 2017 is stated on page 25-26:
The applicant should list his/her activity 1. over the past 10 years (dated from the deadline of the
call) as regards:
1. A list of the top 10 publications, as senior author (or in those fields where alphabetic order of
authorship is the norm, joint author), listing all authors, in major international peer reviewed
multidisciplinary scientific journals and/or in the leading international peer-reviewed journals
and/or peer-reviewed conferences proceedings of their respective research fields, also indicating
the number of citations (excluding auto-citations) they have attracted and possibly the h-index (if
applicable).
2. 3 major research monographs, chapters in collective volumes and any translations thereof (if
applicable).
3. 5 granted patents (if applicable).
4. 10 invited presentations to peer-reviewed, internationally established conferences and/or
international advanced schools (if applicable).
5. 3 research expeditions that the applicant has led (if applicable).
6. 3 organisations of international conferences in the field of the applicant (membership in the
steering and/or programme committee) (if applicable).
7. International Prizes/Awards/Academy memberships (if applicable).
8. Major contributions to early career of excellent researchers (if applicable)
9. Examples of leadership in industrial innovation (if applicable).
12.1 The benchmarks

Where the CV is focused on International scientific leadership, the focus in this section
clearly shifts towards providing information on International recognition of scientific
(intellectual) leadership.
Even though this section is focussed on the last 10 years of your research track record, we
advise you make the reviewers aware of this by providing information that this is a
selection (publication 93 whole career, 10-years 28).
12.2 Self assessment – bench mark
12.3 Publications
When drafting this section there is a word of caution. Although you may expect that every
reviewer fully understands the instructions of the Information for Applicants, this may be
not completely true. Panel chairs know the instructions for writing the document inside out
because the chairs discuss this in their formal meetings. The other panel members may be
quite ignorant about the instructions for the applicant and may therefore be more remote
from the details as why the proposal is structured as it is. Therefore make use of an
explanatory paragraphs.
Opening paragraph
Space is limited to 2-pages for this section. Therefore start with stating the number of total
publications and if applicable the number of citations. If you do not provide these numbers
you run the risks that reviewers have missed the fact that your list contains only a selection
of your publications and conclude that the presented publications are too meager. Please
provide the source of the data, because the panel is checking these data.

Source of data: It is important to use the source of data that is common to your field.
Every panel member knows that your number of papers and citations is higher based on
Google Scholar than other databases. Use Web of Knowledge or Scopus if you are in the
field of life sciences and chemistry or physics. Use Google Scholar if you are in the field of
humanities and some cases social sciences. Use Inspire or Nasa database if that is the
custom in your field.
After listing the total numbers of publications, present the totals for each sub-section of
publications. If applicable in your field state how many publications in a journal with an
impact factor higher than x, your h-index or g-index and any other information
demonstrating your intellectual capacity and creativity.
As an Advanced Grant applicant you preferably list those papers that are produced by your
group (first author is member of your team). In case you list papers produced by other
groups highlight your contribution to these papers.
Presenting your selection

Select those papers that are published in major journals and/or conference proceedings in
your field, attracted a lot of citations, attention (cover page, highlighted in other journals,
Faculty of 1000, number of downloads) describing major scientific achievements in the
past. Panels do take into account that recent papers have not attracted many citations.
This selection should demonstrate your skills and experience with the methodology/project;
previous research that led to groundbreaking results; publications that attracted significant
recognition; publications in high impact journals; publications that demonstrate that you are
the PI for this project by being main author and/or corresponding author; and collaborate
with top research groups. If you have too many publications insert a web link to your
homepage with all other publications. If you have still space left describe the important
outcomes of a publication in case the title is not self-explanatory or explain your role or
contribution etc.
If you are working in the field of software or humanities list conference proceedings,
monographs, chapters in national or international books etc.
The Information for Applicants states that you have to provide the number of citations
without self-citations per publication. If citations are not applicable in your field clarify the
attracted attention such as prizes or mandatory curriculum or invited lectures.
Publication sub-sections
List items in standard bibliographic form, classified by subsection
Indicate your name by making it for example bold and clarify the publication procedures for
listing authors in case you are not the first and/or last author. In some fields the order of
authors is alphabetical, in others fields hierarchal or in the field of life sciences depending
on who carried out the work and who is responsible. We see many variations even within
one particular field. Examples of publications:
• peer reviewed publications in international journals

• peer reviewed international conference proceedings, see also further below
• In books; Indicate if you have been the sole author, co-author, editor or co-editor of the
book
• In book chapters
• In press, meaning that the publication has been accepted for publication
.

12.4 (Granted) Patents

You could list your patents as an indication of your creativity. Mention these under a
separate heading. Many applicants list also their patent application. If a patent application
or patent has entered the national phase, you can also mention the countries where the
patent rights have been applied for. Include also information whether the patent has been
successfully licensed to a company and/or used for a product or a service.
If you add the above information you demonstrate to reviewers of personal grants that
others trust your results and invest in this. Patents in general are seen as a proof of
originality and novel thinking.
Technology/Software. Just as patents technology and software applications can be seen

as a demonstration of your creativity.
12.5 Contribution to career of excellent scientists

Decide whether to use the space in the B1b-CV or that it is better to have this information
in section B1c- 10 Years Track-record. Only provide this information once.
12.6 Analysis of PI’s awarded an ERC Advanced Grants in 2008

Karol Życzkowski, panel member of PE2 noticed during the panel meetings of call 2008
that the panel members discussed the CV’s without considering the numbers of papers,
citations and h-factor. The discussions focused on the content of past scientific
achievements and the capacity of the scientist to start innovative, creative and ground
breaking research lines. After the closure of the 2008 call he analysed with Web
Knowledge whether a consideration of the numbers would have led to another outcome.
He noticed that in his panel PE 2 the median number of the citations of the best 10
publications among all 117 applications evaluated by the PE-2 panel was equal to 384, the
median for the group of 33 proposals passing both thresholds was equal to 853, while it
amounts to 1326 for the group of 14 winning proposals. There is a clear correlation of the
numbers with the selection of the proposals. Considering the numbers would not have led
to another outcome in his panel: the PIs with the highest number of papers, citations and
h-factor were awarded.
Karol Życzkowski has also analysed the awarded proposals of the other panels with Web
Knowledge to determine the average numbers of papers, citations and h-factor needed for
an award.
Web of Knowledge, a database covering international journals was however useless for
most panels in domain of Social Sciences and Humanities, mainly due to the tradition of
most senior scholars and scientists in these fields to publish in national journals or write
books or book chapters. However, the ERC requests that at least one major research
monograph is translated into another language. It is therefore important that your name
pops up a few times if someone searchers your name on internet, in Google Scholar or in
a bibliometric database for social sciences and humanities, preferably with one document
in a common European language as English, French, German etc.
The outcome of numbers per panel in combination with the bench marks set by the ERC is
a useful tool for scientists in the fields of Physical Scientists and Engineering and Life
Sciences to carry out a self-evaluation. A rule of thumb is that the 10 most important
publications of the last 10 years need to be cited (without auto-citations) more than x times.
X = the average number of papers/citations per panel.

Outcome of the analysis carried out by Karol Życzkowski, panel member PE2 using Web
Knowledge of ISI Thomson. Please note that some of the panel titles has been changed in
2014 call.
min auto
Panel papers citations citations h-index
Physical Sciences & Engineering
PE1 Mathematical foundations 29 281 141 9
PE2 Fundamental constituents of matter 106 4192 2148 30
PE3 Condensed matter physics 109 2357 1253 23
PE4 Physical & Analytical Chemical sciences 137 4051 2248 33
PE5 Materials & Synthesis 254 5782 3735 38
PE6 Computer science & informatics 55 564 262 10
PE7 Systems & communication engineering 51 949 384 15
PE8 Products & process engineering 55 503 242 12
PE9 Universe sciences 125 4039 2162 33
PE10 Earth system science 92 1514 910 21
Life Sciences
LS1 Molecular & Struct. Biology & Biochemistry 121 4604 2521 29
LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics 112 5906 2388 39
LS3 Cellular and Developmental Biology 61 2414 1573 25
LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiol. & Endocrinology 176 4825 3587 41
LS5 Neurosciences & neural disorders 70 2469 1461 24
LS6 Immunity & infection 83 3157 2224 28
LS7 Diagnostic tools, therapies & public health 81 2909 1555 28
LS8 Evolutionary, population & environ. Biology 68 2415 1310 22
LS9 Applied life sciences & biotechnology 79 1677 721 23
Social Sciences and Humanities
SH1 Individuals, institutions & markets 4 11 5 1
SH2 Institutions, values, beliefs and behaviour 1 0 0 0
SH3 Environment & society 11 62 46 3
SH4 The Human Mind and its complexity 29 268 217 7
SH5 Cultures & cultural production 1 0 0 0
SH6 The study of the human past 1 0 0 0

13 – B2 The Scientific Proposal
13. B2 The Scientific Proposal

The guide “Information for Applicants” 2017 has been updated and the instructions for ERC
applicants are as follows:
The scientific, technical, and/or scholarly aspects of the project should be described more in
detail demonstrating the ground-breaking nature of the research, its potential impact and
research methodology. The fraction of the applicant's research effort that will be devoted to this
project and a full estimation of the real project costs also need to be indicated.
State-of-the-Art and objectives: Specify clearly the objectives of the proposal, in the context of
the state of the art in the field. When describing the envisaged research it should be indicated
how and why the proposed work is important for the field, and what impact it will have if
successful, such as how it may open up new horizons or opportunities for science, technology or
scholarship. Specify any particularly challenging or unconventional aspects of the proposal,
including multi - or inter-disciplinary aspects.
Scientific Approach: Describe the proposed methodology in detail including, as appropriate,

key intermediate goals. Explain and justify the methodology in relation to the state of the art,
including any particularly novel or unconventional aspects addressing the high gain/high risk
balance. Highlight any intermediate stages where results may require adjustments to the project
planning.
In case it is proposed that team members engaged by another host institution participate in the
project, their participation has to be fully justified. This should be done emphasizing the scientific
added value they bring to the project.
We recommend that you start the writing process with the B2 part. Once you have the full
scientific, scholarly, technical or engineering details on paper it is much easier to take a
step back and consider what the highlights are for writing the B1a Extended Synopsis,so
that you can ensure you are addressing the evaluation criteria applicable to part B1a.
Therefore, a few reminders in relation to the previous chapters:
• Make sure that you understand the evaluation criteria – see the chapter Evaluation;
• Go through the preparatory work suggested in the chapter Writing in General, to

assess what project idea fits the ERC objectives and selection criteria. It is
recommended to start a year in advance, decide on the choice of panel and
consider the keywords, design a storyboard as well as read the practical writing
issues;
• Remember that this is chapter B2 in the structure of the template and that before
this, in the B1 part, there will be a summary on the cover page and thereafter the
B1a Extended Synopsis. The reviewers will first read the B1 and then the B2. .
Therefore, carefully consider how much repetition there should be in the opening
paragraph of the B2 because it will be the third time the reviewers read an
introduction.
Opening paragraph
The opening paragraph should catch the attention of the reader, as already written in the
chapter related to B1a. Also in the B2 part this paragraph is so important, it warrants some
further consideration. The opening paragraph and concluding paragraph mirror each other.
The opening paragraph sketches the potential of addressing a challenging idea, whereas
the concluding paragraph should, after reading the whole project provide the reader with
convincing wording on the likelihood of generating ground-breaking results and
contributing significantly to the current knowledge. The opening paragraph should be the
teaser and the closing paragraph should provide the promise of a theoretical or conceptual
change in your research field and other fields.

14 – B2a State of the art and Objectives
14. B2a State of the art and Objectives

For drafting the objectives and the state of the art of part B2a of the Scientific Proposal, it
is good to look at the evaluation criterion for the project and the corresponding writing
instructions in the Information for Applicants. Please notice that all the words used to
assess the groundbreaking nature and potential impact of the research are reflected in the
writing instructions.
Evaluation criteria:
Groundbreaking nature and potential impact of the research

• To what extent does the proposed research address important challenges?
• To what extent are the objectives ambitious and beyond the state of the art (e.g. novel concepts
and approaches or development across disciplines)?
• How much is the proposed research high-risk / high-gain?
Please check the new instructions for 2017 call. The Information for Applicants 2017writing
instructions for B2a are:
State of the art and objectives: Specify clearly the objectives of the proposal, in the context of
the state of the art in the field. When describing the envisaged research it should be indicated
how and why the proposed work is important for the field, and what impact it will have if
successful, such as how it may open up new horizons or opportunities for science, technology or
scholarship. Specify any particularly challenging or unconventional aspects of the proposal,
including multi - or inter-disciplinary aspects.
14.1 Important Challenges and the Big Research Question

The first evaluation criterion the reviewers have to assess, is to what extent the proposed
research addresses important challenges. This is directly connected to the objective of the
ERC work programme: to fund research that will lead to advances at the frontiers of
knowledge and to set a clear and inspirational target for frontier research. In general,
panels translate this to research that will open up new research horizons or opportunities
for research in existing research fields or new and emerging research fields. The second
part of the assessment under this criterion is the assessment of “to what extent” the
proposed research will address the important challenges. For example, will the project
address a key element of the important challenges opening up the perspectives to resolve
the challenges or contribute significantly to addressing the important challenges or resolve
the important challenges. There are many ways to explain this to the reviewers.
The ERC is looking for projects that address an important challenge in your research area
and preferably also relevant to adjacent research areas as defined by the keywords of the
panel. For it to qualify as important, the challenge should open up new research directions,
new lines of research or research fields and lead to major breakthroughs in research. This
selection criterion is therefore used to prioritise projects that need to be funded now.
Important challenge, big research question or both?

In assessing a proposal, the panels take into account traditions and customs in a research
field. In many research fields the words ‘important challenge’ are translated into other
words such as ‘the big or urgent research question’. In some panels the important
challenge is paired with a big research question or even several research questions.
Discuss with your colleagues what the traditions and customs in your research field are so
you can assess how you are going to present the important challenge(s).

Overarching aim and objectives

The overarching aim and objectives should explain how you will address the important
challenge(s) and formulate the focus and scope of the research proposal and its
coherence.
The Research Question should lead to Big Answers

A research question may formulate the focus of the proposed research. In some fields the
research question(s) is very important but in most cases a research question would be too
broad. As for example in ‘What is dark matter?’ It is therefore important to formulate a big
research question together with more specific and more focused research questions to
clarify what the scope of your project is and to what extent you will address the big
research question.
In most scientific fields your aim will be to contribute towards solving a big research
question or opening new research perspectives in your field and adjacent fields. In social
sciences and humanities you may resolve the big research question to a large extent,
opening new research perspectives in adjacent fields. The objectives in combination with
the project idea explain to the reader how you will tackle this research question. All
proposals need to have an objective(s) and most proposals should have one Big Research
Question. As a reviewer in the field of chemistry described it “Big Research Question lead
to Big answers where small questions lead to the small answers in which we are not
interested in for an ERC grant”. In fields like mathematics, theoretical physics, humanities
and some of the social sciences successful proposal seem to be based only on research
questions but in the methodology section the objectives are presented to clarify how the
research question is addressed in the proposal. Most proposals contain a mix of a Big
Research Question and Objectives.
Both, research questions and hypotheses influence the scientific/engineering or scholarly

approach that is employed in order to either provide answers to the questions or
verify/falsify hypotheses.
18
Consider to make use of the Turabian Manual in focusing your research questions. We
used Turabian to come up with ERC type of research questions:
• Conceptual or theoretical questions should allow reviewers to find answers to
assess “So What is it that we Must Understand that will make a significant impact on
the research area”.
• Applied questions should allow reviewers to find answers to assess “So What is it
that we Must Know before we Can Do and what is then that will make a significant
impact on the research area”.
Be extremely careful with research questions that tend to be of a Practical Nature.

Questions that lead to “What we Should Do”. The problem for an ERC project with practical
questions how research of this nature will open up new horizons for further research;
opens up new research directions.
Both, research questions and hypotheses influence the scientific/engineering or scholarly

approach that is employed in order to either provide answers to the questions or
verify/falsify hypotheses.
Hypotheses
There is a general expectation that your research is hypothesis driven in an ERC project.
This does not mean that this is valid for all fields in all panels! Where hypothesis driven
research is applicable, reviewers will use the hypothesis (or hypotheses) to assess how
testable your experiments, case studies, fieldwork etc is in relation to the impact that you
18. A Manual for writers of research papers, theses and dissertations, Kate L. Turabian, eight edition

want to generate; therefore how important is your hypothesis in the light of the Big
Research Question. In an ERC project the hypotheses are not null hypotheses describing
a statement that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or no
difference. The hypothesis described is directly relevant for the big research question or
the overarching aim of the project and aims to identify the cause of this correlation leading
to novel insights and understanding.
The hypothesis is tested based upon the Specific Objectives and the proposed
workplan/research design. The presentation of the hypothesis can be at the level of the big
research question or can be presented after the specific objectives. Some applications
have one overall hypothesis, whereas others have one for each aim. Use whatever
approach works best for you
14.1.1 Ground-breaking versus impact

Impact: Try to list all envisioned project findings and outcomes and describe the impact on
your research field as well as adjacent fields and how this will create or open up new
horizons for further research. Explain explicitly what we will learn and how we can use this
for future research. It is important to generalise the project findings to a common
framework, concept, model, knowledge etc and explain how this knowledge is contributing
to answering the big research question or addressing the important challenge. If your
outcomes create an impact on industry, society and the broader research society this is
important as well but in a secondary manner, which you also need to describe. The impact
on your research is leading, not the impact on society or industry.
Ground-breaking: In many panels reviewers want to ensure that when the important
challenge will not generate the intended impact that at least the research will significantly
advance the field, therefore reviewers want to understand what key intermediate goals will
be obtained. Substantiate such outcomes by describing for the reviewers what it is that will
cause the breakthrough. The breakthroughs may vary from an accepted publication in one
of the leading scientific journals to the possibility to study a specific topic with the newly
developed methodology/technology/ method/software/data etc.
14.2 Ambitious objectives
Why objectives?
We see a lot of proposals that make use of hypotheses or research questions without
including obvious research objectives. But if you check the methodology the applicant is
explaining to the reader how the research questions or hypotheses are addressed (being
objectives). In the process of the ERC project evaluation it is important for ERC projects to
have ambitious objectives in place because it helps evaluators to determine:
• How you will address the big research question(s) or important challenge(s);
• If your project goes beyond the state-of-the-art;
• If these objectives are realistic in the light of the feasibility description of the project;
• How the objective link to the proposed methodology; and
• Whether the objectives may be achieved by producing the output (milestones).
14.2.1 Novel concept, novel approach, novel development across disciplines

Just describing the objectives/aims or research questions is not sufficient for the reader to
understand what is unique about the proposal, why it stands out between the competing
projects. Therefore the evaluation criterion provides reviewers with the possibility to assess
the novel concept/approach or developments across disciplines. Explain to the reader what
is the novel concept or novel approach and to what extent your project will lead to a novel

concept or approach in research. The uniqueness could be defined by one of these terms
or through several.
The hypothesis can also fulfil this role as a statement based on an idea, to capture an
educated guess or concept that may be true is for most reviewers across all disciplines of
research a very important factor in assessing the quality of the proposal.
14.2.2 State-of-the-art and self-references

The task of the reviewers is to assess if the objectives are ambitious, not if the state-of-the-
art presented in B1a Extended Synopsis or the B2 Scientific proposal is a complete
overview of the state-of-the-art of the field. The task for the reviewer is to analyse how
ambitious the proposed research is in the light of the state-of-the-art and what makes your
project unconventional in view of what other groups are doing. This means that careful
consideration is needed to describe what the state-of-the-art is that forms the current
frontier in research. Depending on research area state-of-the-art older than 10 years
should be justified why this is representing the current frontier. But in more theoretical
fields or pure mathematics where open questions are addressed the state of the art can be
40 years old or older. Let alone in fields of the humanities. Gives credibility and legitimacy
to the research;
The state of the art fulfils any or all of the following points:
• Shows why your project is ambitious in comparison to what others have done up to
today
• Provides a good insight in the key issues,
• Demonstrates PI’s awareness of the theoretical, conceptual, methodological and
substantive problems in the field;
• Clarifies key concepts, issues, terms and meanings used in the project;
• Raises issues, shows where there are gaps in the research field, how to move the
field forwards, and in general justifies the need for the research;
• Shows the PI’s own critical judgment on prior research or theoretical matters in the
field;
In the assessment on the state of the art the reviewers will also want to see self-references
to own work. The reviewers want to understand how you as PI are part of the current
frontier of the scientific field. The balance of how much you present own work will depend
quite a lot on how dominant you are in the field. In case very dominant than tune down
your self-references in favour of those of the competition.
As addressed in the course, you have a lot of freedom to organize section B2a and B2b in
the way fits you best. We just highlight here particular points to keep in mind when writing
these sections.
Several other points to keep in mind:

• Present the world-wide state-of-the-art, thus include references to research carried
out in e.g. US or China;
• Specify your field, this limits the state-of-the-art you need to present;
• Be modest with self-references but include the references referring to your
knowledge etc enabling this project and demonstrating your contribution to the field;
• Take into regard previously financed ERC and other EU projects;
• Explain what other groups are doing and why your project idea or approach is more
promising;
• When you propose very applied research, also include results of patent searches;
In general it is easier for reviewer when you present your objectives before presenting the
state-of-the-art. Imagine that the reviewer has to read or struggle through 5-6 pages of

state-of-the-art descriptions without having a clue why this state-of-the-art is important for
your research objective.
14.2.3 Preliminary evidence

In relation to the criterion of feasibility reviewers want to assess what kind of insight or
evidence you have that the hypothesis/concept/approach is potentially feasible. This
means that you need to provide the reviewers with the convincing details, evidence, why
you believe your proposal is potentially feasible. It does not matter where this evidence is
presented in the project, bit what is important is that such evidence is presented in clearly
and understandable for the reviewer who is not an in-depth expert in step 1 and the in-
depth external expert in step 2. This means that preliminary evidence must be included in
the Extended Synopsis where the panel member most likely not being in-depth experts are
able to assess it. In the B2 this evidence can be more detailed for the independent expert.
14.3 High-gain/High-risk balance

In most science panels mature projects are being selected. Mature projects can be defined
differently. A sound and well developed project idea to address the challenge or research
question is key but also the evidence for feasibility of the scientific approach. This implies
that you need to provide evidence to balance the high-risks in your project to increase the
likelihood the project will indeed lead to high-gain. In humanities we see projects being
funded without evidence of feasibility.
It should be clear what the challenges are and what the novel aspects are of the
approach/methodology described. The high-gain and high-risk balance is linked to the
project idea, its challenges, objectives and methodology. Describe what are the novel or
unconventional aspects in your proposed project concept/idea, methodology or approach.
Make sure that you do not just use this word but that you truly explain why it is novel or
unconventional in view of the ongoing research. When you include novel or unconventional
aspects this may constitute a high-risk, use these elements to put together your risk
analysis and your intermediate stages for project adjustment when needed.
Never state in your proposal that the proposed research is on-going research because the
reviewers immediately assume that the project is not innovative (novel, challenging,
ground breaking, unconventional). The novel aspect may be a novel approach, novel
combination of ideas/data, novel method/technology or a new research field (new
interdisciplinary approach. In a PE or LS project there must always be a novel element in
the scientific approach, even if you are opting for applied research. Please remember that
the objective of the ERC is research addressing a challenge, an urgent research question
or a big research question.
Any project should score high marks on the high-risk/high-gain balance in order to be
financed. Therefore make this your conceptual starting point for writing your project
proposal. It should be the opening paragraph of your project and as such set the tone and
pace for the project. Of course the risk you take has to be justified by the impact your
project will create on the scientific field by opening up new horizons or opportunities for
research. The feasibility will be examined by the proposed methodology as well in the
organisation and planning of the proposal and available technical and intellectual
infrastructure.
Balance the risk to your experience. A proposal of an Advanced Grant applicant may
contain more risky aspects than an applicant for Consolidator or Starting Grant. As rule of
thumb: Try as a consolidator not to have more than 25% of your project qualified as high
risk, as starter this should be even lower, for example 15%. An Advanced Grant applicant
could submit a project proposal with up to 30-40% risk but in the recent calls these projects
are only granted if the gain is beyond imagination.

15 – B2b Appropriate Scientific Approach
15. B2b Appropriate Scientific Approach

The scientific approach/strategy/methodology is influencing the feasibility of achieving the
objectives and vice versa. Provide the reviewers with sufficient information to give them the
possibility to assess the appropriateness and feasibility of the methodology. You have 15
pages to address the state of the art, objectives, methodology and resources so use them
wisely and do not send in a proposal with only 1 page describing the methodology.
Please check the new instructions for 2017 call. The Information for Applicants in 2017
instructions are:
Methodology: Describe the proposed methodology in detail including, as appropriate, key
intermediate goals. Explain and justify the methodology in relation to the state of the art, including
any particularly novel or unconventional aspects. Highlight any intermediate stages where results
may require adjustments to the project planning. In case it is proposed that team members
engaged by another host institution participate in the project, their participation has to be fully
justified. This should be done emphasizing the scientific added value they bring to the project.
Evaluation criteria, see ERC work programme 2017 on page 32
Methodology
• To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible? (assessed at step 1)
• To what extent is the proposed research methodology appropriate to achieve the goals of the
project (based on full Scientific Proposal)?
• To what extent does the proposal involve the development of novel methodology (based on full
Scientific Proposal)?
• To what extent are the proposed timescales and resources necessary and properly justified
(based on full Scientific Proposal)?
15.1 Addressing the evaluation criteria feasibility and methodology

Reviewers have a good understanding of methodologies or approaches and what could be
accomplished by using these within your project. This means that you have to provide
evaluators with a very detailed section on methodology. Include the method or tool, type of
equipment, data, materials etc that you are going to use it, within your department and the
rest of the institution. Explain the scientific added value of running experiments at other
institutions or asking help from other researchers facilitating some aspects of your
research. Make sure that your resources justification section aligns with this section and
vice versa.
15.1.1 Feasibility & Work-plan

The proposed project should be potentially feasible in the light of the high-risk/high-gain
nature of an ERC proposal. On the one hand you present high-risk components of your
proposal leading to high-gain and a major impact on research, decreasing the feasibility
(too challenging project). On the other hand you have to convince the reviewers that the
likelihood of achieving the objectives and successful project implementation is high,
increasing the feasibility (if I carry out the proposed work). The high gain and high risk
balance.
To explain the feasibility of the proposed work you need to have a well-structured and
organised project by presenting a clear strategy, work-plan with intermediate goals,
description of the appropriateness of the methodology to achieve the objectives or carrying
out the different tasks and a feasibility analysis with proposals for adjustments, If you
combine the writing instructions and the selection criteria you may realise that the project
template is insufficient. It is not sufficient to propose a challenging project with a high
impact and a description of the methodology. You need also to convince the reviewers that
you will achieve the objectives, implement the project successfully by having eg planned

the work and assessed risks and alternatives and that you are the right person to carry out
the project, working in the right intellectual and technical infrastructure.
You need to come up with a better project structure than the project template fitting your
project plan. A strategy may be to formulate first the overall scientific strategy and
objectives and the main overall work-plan to achieve these objectives. The second step is
to divide the work-plan into 3-5 activities, work packages, subprojects or strands. These
subparts of the work-plan are linked to an objective which is feeding into the main
overarching aim. Each activity/work package/subproject/strand is running 2-3 years,
ending with a milestone describing when you are successful or need to adapt the work-
plan. You may add midterm milestones to an activity/work package/subproject/strand when
the project is very challenging. When you have achieved all milestones, you have also
achieved all objectives. But also explain how these achieved objectives lead to the
achievement of the overarching aim or addressing the big research question.
For example: The overall objective is to assess the added value of the EU for citizens. The
objectives are to draft queries, to interview 10.000 citizens in 10 countries representing EU,
to analyse the data. In this project the activities are clearly linked to the objectives.
• Activity/Work Package 1: In year 1 the queries are drafted and a pilot is run to test
the queries by interviewing 100 citizens in 4 countries. Based on these data the
queries are fine-tuned. The milestone is well formulated queries.
• Activity/Work Package 2: In year 2 the queries are translated in 9 languages and

tested in 1000 citizens in 10 different countries to take into account cultural
differences. If the response is positive the interviews will be extended with 9000
citizens to 10.000 citizens in year 3. The milestone is the obtain interviews of 10.000
citizens in 10 countries.
• Activity 3/Work Package: In year 4 the data of the interviews are analysed ….
The next step is to carry out a feasibility analysis by describe clearly what part of the
proposed research is feasible, likely feasible or maybe feasible (all gradations of risk!).
High-risk/high-gain projects need to convince the reviewers and therefore you need to
demonstrate that every proposed high risk aspect is feasible, by depicting some
preliminary data, indicating that your hypothesis is based on more than an idea. It should
not be more than an indication that your hypothesis might be right because otherwise you
run the risks that your proposal is considered to be ongoing research, an additional step,
an incremental step because your preliminary data are overwhelming and too convincing.
All these qualification will bar your project from being selected from funding. If all proposed
steps/activities are feasible than your project will run the same risk of being barred from
funding on the ground of being judged as on-going research. Please note that if you are
developing an unconventional (being new and never considered as possible) methodology
you need to have more preliminary data than when you are using conventional
methodology and adding only a small new element, In some cases the panel expect you to
publish the preliminary results, especially if these finding are truly disruptive. If you are
submitting a project proposal with a conventional methodology, provide than also sufficient
details on for example which sources of data, methods, amount of data generated,
analyses and statistics etc.
A strategy for demonstrating feasibility
There are several options for demonstrating feasibility of your high-gain/high-risk project.
Hereunder we provide a strategy and all words underlined are explained in the writing
instruction section of this chapter. In the slides examples are provided.

15.2 Writing Instruction

Tools that demonstrate feasibility in section B2b Scientific Approach:
• Divide divide your project in subprojects, activities, strands or work packages and have
clear key intermediate goals;
• Add a clear time line as for example a simplified Gantt chart. In the Gantt chart you
show that the planning is feasible for the duration of the project. Preferably you include
key intermediate stages (milestones) and interdependencies. Add also a legend
explaining the Gantt chart;
• Explain your strategy to achieve the objectives. With which activity will you start and
why and when do you decide to deviate from your original plan. Discuss the
interdependency of the objectives and the consequences for the impact. The Gantt
chart or PERT chart can be used to visualise your strategy;
• Add a risk analysis. A risk analysis identifies the bottle-necks in the project, the level of
risk (low, medium or high), the feasibility and options to overcome the bottle-neck. In
the slides we have added an example of a Risk Feasibility Table. This table provides
an overview of the tasks with a correlated indication of the risk and the possible
contingency plan;
• PERT charts may be separately done or incorporated in the Gantt chart where the
interdependencies of tasks are demonstrated;
• Add some preliminary data to justify the scientific approach or present the proof of
principle during the interview session in Brussels (in case of a Starting or Consolidator
Grant applicant);
• Describe the current intellectual and technical infrastructure and explain what kind of
methodologies/equipment is running or being tested;
• Describe your network and collaborators for collecting data or carrying out experiments
etc;
• Explain the rationale of choices made; and
• Provide information on your strategy and options. Panel members tell us that you need
to inform them about how you will carry out the first steps. You can also use the
timescales or Gantt chart to explain your initial strategy.
15.2.1 Key intermediate goals

Key intermediate goals are goals you need to achieve to demonstrate that you project is
progressing. We normally link these key intermediate goals to milestones. If you have
obtained a milestone you have successfully achieved (a part of) an objective and can
proceed to the next phase of your research plan. For example first set up the technology,
run a pilot to test the technology and then carry out the proposed experiments. Or first
collect several data on few locations, test the data and then collect all data on all locations
and analyse them etc. In the past call we have noticed that panels were focussing on
whether you can measure parameters related to phenomena. It is therefore a good idea to
test whether you can measure something and provide the evidence in the project proposal.
If you have not obtained a key intermediate goal you need to adapt the project plan, by
changing the scientific approach, intensifying time investment or extending the timescale.
Discuss also the consequences for the impact.
15.2.2 Intermediate stages

The reviewers will look at the project structure and planning to assess if you will be able to
carry out the proposed research within 5 years and to adapt the research plan, when
required. There are two options. Either you describe what the intermediate stages are or
you describe and depict them in a Gantt chart. Whatever option you choose describe

where you foresee potential moments in this time scale where you can still adjust your
project planning if needed.
Gantt-chart
Evaluating the above text is not easy therefore demonstrate your ability to organise this
project within the project duration by visualising your project plan with the help of Gantt and
PERT charts. These charts are not mandatory. If you use charts, always check if text and
chart are in line with each other.
In most ERC proposals a simplified Gantt chart is added to clarify the timing of proposed
research, using an excel spread sheet. A separate PERT chart is not added but some
applicants add PERT features to the Gantt chart, by using arrows in the Gantt chart to link
activities to each other.
The Gantt-chart (also known as project planning chart) is an important element both in
presenting the structure and timing of a project and in monitoring (and controlling) the
progress of the work. Basically, it is a bar chart showing the duration of each package of
work.
Gantt-chart is constructed with a horizontal axis representing the total time span of the
project, broken down into quarter years (Q1, Q2 etc) and a vertical axis representing the
tasks that make up the project.
Horizontal bars of varying lengths represent the time span for each task. The bars may
overlap. You may link elements illustrating their inter-dependencies (a PERT-chart feature),
The most simple Gantt chart is drafted with excel.

Starting Date Consider in your planning that it must be feasible to start your project,
according to the GfA, within 6 months from the invitation to initiate the preparation of the
granting process. This implies that you have to plan your work properly, you can not afford
to have delays due to problems with hiring your team members because such a delay will
not be acceptable for the council even may result in a withdraw of the grant. We have
heard from several ERC Advanced Grant holders that several months after the ERC
project had started, excellent and highly qualified scientists were sending out of the blue an
application for a job. If they had known the effect of an ERC grant on people, the ERC
awardees had planned their project accordingly to enable them to hire personnel a few
months later.
15.2.3 PERT-chart
The PERT-chart is designed to show the inter-dependencies between tasks. A PERT-chart
links those tasks that are of importance in controlling and assessing the progress of the
project. The links make it possible to see at a glance the consequences of a task running
behind schedule or failing to achieve the expected result. In other words, a PERT-chart
answers the questions:
• is there enough time available to allow this task to catch up;
• which other tasks may be delayed
• which other elements need rescheduling to overcome the failed task?
By its nature, research contains uncertainties and there is a high probability that the
unexpected will happen. Evidence of good planning will give the evaluators confidence that
the project has been properly thought out and that the partners have given themselves the
best chance of coping with the unexpected. A proposal presented in this way is likely to be
rated more highly than an over-confident assumption that all will go according to plan.
An idea could be to add the interdependency to the Gantt chart by using arrows and
other markings. In this way PERT and Gantt and merged which will safe space.
The PERT-chart presents some of the same information as the Gantt-chart, but with a
different emphasis. The PERT-chart provides more information about the content of each
work package (WP), their interactions and the flow of information between them, as well as
indicating which partners are involved in carrying out a specific tasks. The PERT-chart is
useful in illustrating the overall working structure of a project. You can add information
about crucial steps, timeline, milestones etc.

Your PERT-chart should, for consistency and ease of interpretation, use the same titles
and notation as your Gantt-chart. Google to find more information and other examples.
Risk analysis table The buzz word from the past evaluation rounds has been back up plan
or contingency plan. In both cases the evaluators refer to a description of the alternative
approaches in case your (high-risk) approach fails to deliver the desired results. There are
many ways to do this. A table listing per activity/work package the high-risk elements could
be very effective. See the example in our slide show. Instead of one summarizing table,
you could opt to address at the end of each work package description a short paragraph of
the risk and alternatives. If you provide it per work package discuss also the overall
feasibility of the proposal in a separate paragraph
15.2.4 Figures, graphs etc

Most ERC project proposals contain several figures, graphs, tables etc. The visual
presentation of information helps the reviewer to assess what is already available or has
been achieved to assess the feasibility of the overall project. Some applicants also add a
graphical representation of the project.

16 – B2c Resources
16. B2c Resources

Please check the new instructions for 2017 call. The Information for Applicants in 2017 instructions
are:
Scientific Approach
• To what extent are the proposed timescales and resources necessary and properly justified?
(based on full Scientific Proposal)
Please check the new instructions for 2017 call. The Information for Applicants 2017 instructions are:
B2c. Resources (incl. project costs): It is strongly recommended to use the budget table template included
in Part B2 to facilitate the assessment of resources by the panels. For detailed information on eligible- and
non-eligible direct and indirect costs as well as the different cost categories applicants should consult the
H2020 ERC Model Grant Agreement and the H2020 ERC Annotated Model Grant Agreement . Please use
whole euro integers only when preparing the budget table.
State the amount of funding considered necessary to fulfil the objectives for the duration of the project. The
resources requested should be reasonable and fully justified in the proposal. The requested grant should be
in proportion to the actual needs to fulfil the objectives of the project.
Specify briefly your commitment to the project and how much time you are willing to devote to the proposed
project. Please note that you are expected to devote at least 30% of your total working time to the ERC-
funded project and spend at least 50% of your total working time in an EU Member State or Associated
Country (see the ERC Work Programme 2017).
Describe the size and nature of the team, indicating, where appropriate, the key team members an their roles.
The participation of team members engaged by another host institution should be justified in relation to the
additional financial cost this may impose to the project. Take into account the percentage of your dedicated
time to run the ERC funded activity when calculating your personnel costs.
Specify any existing resources that will contribute to the project. Describe other necessary resources, such as
infrastructure and equipment. It is advisable to include a short technical description of the equipment
requested, a justification of its need as well as the intensity of its planned use. When estimating the costs for
travel, please also consider participation of the PI and team members in conferences and dissemination
events.
The terms and conditions laid down in the article 29.2 of the ERC Annotated Model Grant Agreement address
how scientific publications must be made available through Open Access. Applicants should be aware that it
will be mandatory to provide Open Access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed
scientific publications resulting from ERC projects funded through this call.Open Access can be ensured
through green or gold Open Access-routes, and Open Access must in any case be ensured through a
repository at the latest 6 months after publication (12 months for publications from the Social Sciences and
Humanities). Please see Article 29.2 of the ERC Model Grant Agreement for more details, or contact ERC-
OPEN-ACCESS@ec.europa.eu.
Costs for providing immediate Open Access to publications (article processing charges) are eligible and can
be charged against the ERC grant if they are incurred during the lifetime of the project. When drafting the
budget, it is highly advisable to consider the need to include such expenditure, and if that is the case, to make
a realistic estimation of the amount needed. In addition, the ERC recommends that all funded researchers
follow best practice by retaining files of research data produced and used, and are prepared to share these
data with other researchers when not bound by copyright restrictions, confidentiality requirements, or
contractual clauses.
Costs related to data management can also be eligible.
In the budget table: Include the direct costs of the project plus a flat-rate financing of indirect costs calculated
as 25% of the total eligible direct costs (excluding subcontracting) towards overheads. Furthermore, include a
breakdown of the budget subdivided in personnel costs, travel, equipment, consumables, publication costs
(including any costs related to Open Access), other direct costs, and any envisaged subcontracting costs.
If additional funding, above the normal (EUR 2 500 000), is requested for (a) covering eligible ‘startup’ costs
for a PI moving from another country to the EU or an Associated Country3,4 as consequence of receiving an
ERC grant and/or (b) the purchase of major equipment and/or (c) access to large facilities, then this also
needs to be fully justified. Please note that any additional funding request under (a) and (b) is subject to 25%
overhead. The request of additional funding under (c) to access large research facilities owned by a third
party and not used on the premises of the beneficiaries should be listed in cost category ‘C2. Other Direct
Costs with no overheads’.

The costs are given for the full duration. A breakdown by reporting period is not requested for the evaluation
process. The ‘Total estimated eligible costs’ as well as the ‘Total requested grant’ figures should be equal to
those inserted in the online proposal submission forms (section 3 – Budget). The ERC funds 100% of the
total eligible costs. In case the total costs differ from the requested grant, should be specified on the proposal
what exactly is funded from other sources
The project cost estimation should be as accurate as possible. The evaluation panels assess the estimated
costs carefully; unjustified budgets will be consequently reduced.
16.1 Size and nature of the Team, including PI commitment

Key Team Members
Describe the current and envisioned composition of your team in terms of how many
people will work on the project, what type of researchers will you attract; post-docs, PhD
students, senior staff, other and don’t forget to describe you own role. For each team
member explain the scientific skills and expertise. If you include post-docs and senior staff,
this means that you include highly skilled (expensive) people on your budget, explain why
you need them in terms of your high-risks.
Only mention those team members by name who will contribute to the feasibility of the
scientific approach, even if these persons are not budgeted.
Indicate clearly which of your team members will be charged to your ERC budget and
which not. Those team members not charged to your budget need some further
explanation on why they are not charging their costs; eg that they may contribute in
scientific custom, for example as co-supervisor of some experiments that your PhD
students have to carry out. Please also explain recent changes in budgeting. One project
was not funded because the panel was not aware that the host institute had not sufficient
money anymore due to severe budget cuts to fund all experiments needed to probe the
theory being developed in the ERC proposal.
The scientific added value of any team member from another host institute needs to be
fully justified, including role and contribution and expertise etc.
PI Commitment. the workload on the ERC Starting Grant should be at least 50% of their
working time, on Consolidator Grant at least 40% and on the Advanced Grant or Synergy
project at least 30%. In call 2011 this requested 50% commitment has become a PI
selection criterion, instead of an eligibility criterion (see Ideas Work Programme call 2013).
This more restricted rule has led to selection of proposals for funding that have an added
value:
• To the science; and

• To the scientific career of the PI.
Please note that the ERC will check this commitment afterwards by time registration. In the
H2020 Guide to Financial Issues is written that working time are all hours worked,
including non-billable hours. The Host Institute has the obligation to ensure that the PI
devotes a significant part of her/his time to the ERC project.
You can describe this in one paragraph. Pay attention to the following aspects:
PI: Time allocation ..%:

Explain your role and time allocation. Explain it in terms of your own expertise as well as
your responsibility of supervising the team. Please note that in some countries you can hire
4-6 persons on a project, leading to a high commitment of the PI to thr project. In other
countries you can hire 2-3 persons.

Senior Researchers (.)

When you include senior researchers, indicate their time allocation to the project. Make
sure when you are a Starting or Consolidator Grant applicant that this contribution is
limited in time allocation and duration, for example between 5-20% of their time during 2
years to demonstrate who is the PI of the project and driving force behind the project. If
you are an Advanced or Synergy Grant applicant there is in most cases no doubt about
who is the driving force behind the project, Detail their expertise and the tasks in which
they are involved.
Post Doctoral Fellow (..): Time allocation 100% in most cases

Just as with the Senior Researcher, explain the expertise and role they will fulfil in the
project. Probably they will have specific supervision roles towards the PhDs.
PhD candidates (..): Time allocation 100% in most cases

Indicate the number of PhD students involved, their expertise and the activities. Explain
how they will function (work together) with the other team members. Detail if they are 3 or
4 year PhDs. This is again important to cross check with the Gantt chart.
Others: experts, technicians, admin, MA students etc

Describe who else you need than PhDs and postdocs. Depending on who they are they
can be budgeted in different ways and even sometimes the collaboration is free of charge
because is based on normal academic custom. If no charge is made this need to be
explained.
Experts, specific external facilities/methodologies: sometimes it is a bit fuzzy how to

organise this and still say that this is not a collaborative undertaking. The panels will check
such input to assess the feasibility of the high risk elements of the project. Therefore you
may wish to distinguish between:
a) a very focussed task: Option 1 and Option 2 below

b) more direct involvement in a certain task: Option 2 below
c) needed for their complementary skills during a longer time: Option 2 and Option 3
You have different options on how to include this type of activity:

1. One or more of the ERC team members (your team financed under the project including
yourself) go to the other institution and conduct under the supervision of this other
institution the "experiment" and take the results back home where these will be analysed
by your team. Most likely use: a) very focussed task. Costs: some travel costs, some
consumables fee and maybe some additional costs that could be charged under “other”.
2. In the budget table you have the option to include "others". These could be experts. In
the ERC proposal you do not have to tell how you contract these others, you just need to
tell who these experts are and for which part of the project you will "use/need" them. The
administrative solutions for "contracting" experts are numerous and may vary from: visiting
professor, secondment, collaboration agreement, temporary position etc. The Expert would
be clearly someone who has a focussed task which most likely does not run during the
whole duration of the project. The reviewers will review the expert contribution in the light
of the mitigation of some of the high-risks.
3. Another host institution. This must be specifically justified, why you need to include this
other institution. The reason must be more than for their expertise because than they could
be included as "other" as described above. So most likely it has to do with specific
technologies and methodologies that they have up and running. Most likely their expertise
and technical facilities are complementary to your own and you probably need them for

quite some time over the years. Also this will be assessed by the reviewers in the light of
mitigating the high-risks.
16.2 The Costing Table

Cost Category Total in EURO
Direct Personnel PI See explanation in 4.1
Costs Senior Staff
Postdocs
Students
Other
i.- Total direct costs for personnel (in EURO)
Travel See below
Equipment See below
Other goods and Consumables See below
services Publications (including open access)
Other
ii. - Total other direct costs (in EURO)
A -Total Direct Costs (i + ii) (in Euro
B-Indirect Costs (overheads) 25% of Direct Costs 4 (in Euro)
Cl-Subcontracting Costs (no overheads) (in Euro)
C2-Other Direct Costs with no overheads (in Euro)
Total Estimated Eligible Costs (A+ B +C) (in Euro)
Total Requested EU contribution
ERC draft template 2017: The project cost estimation should be as accurate as possible.
Significant mathematical mistakes may reflect poorly on the credibility of the costing table and the
proposal overall. The evaluation panel assess the estimated costs carefully. Unjustified budgets
will be consequently reduced
In case you are requesting additional funding above the normal 2500000, fully justify your request
by filling in the table below
Request for additional funding above Justification

EUR 2500000
Keep only that category(ies) that apply

to the project:
a) Covering eligible “start-up” costs for
a PI moving from another country
to the EU or an Associated Country
as a consequence of receiving an
ERC grant and/or,
b) The purchase of major equipment
and/or
c) Access to large facilities
Please indicate the duration of the project in months
Please indicate the % of working time the PI dedicates to the project over the period %
of the grant:

Please indicate the % of working time the PI spends in an EU Member State or %

Associated Country over the period of the grant
Specify briefly your commitment to the project and how much time you are willing to devote
to the proposed project in the resources section. Please note that you are expected to
devote at 1east 50% of your total working time to the ERC and spend at least 50% of your
total working time in an EU Member State or Associated Country
YR tips: Justify every item that you have budgeted in the costing table and use the items
of your costing table as the index for your resource justification. Ask the help of your
support staff for proper budgeting as well as the justification, this is necessary because
some panels scrutinize these costs to cut your budget in order to grant as many projects
as possible. In 2013 we noticed a budget cut across all panels, thanks to the heavy
oversubscription.
16.2.1 Description of existing resources

In your methodology section you have already described how you will carry out your
research and what equipment, software or other resources you need to do this. When
these resources are currently available at your lab or at other labs of your university you
probably do not need to charge it to the ERC project. Just list the resources mentioned in
B2b Methodology and summarize it in this section as the justification that you have this in
place.
Software/equipment/technical infrastructure
…………..software is freely available at my institute. The research team is well
experienced in using ……………………… software. We own and have in operation eg. A
laser scanner and our university currently employs three qualified (licensed) ………….
operators.
Materials
Specify and qualify the material. Materials that you have available are described as well as
materials that you will obtain for example through material transfer. Reassure the
evaluators that you are using the best available material and have for example material
transfer agreements in place.
Models
Specify the models to be used and whether these models are available and appropriate to
achieve the objectives.
In case you are using other facilities, describe the access and assistance in using these
facilities.
16.2.2 Personnel costs

See the section 4.1 above.
16.2.3 Description of resources to be charged to the project, including technical

description
Purchased or charged infrastructure and equipment

a. short technical description of the infrastructure and equipment requested,
b. justification of its need as well as the intensity of its planned use (depreciation)
16.2.4 Travel
The ERC is willing to pay the travel costs of the team members, provided these costs are
budgeted and justified.
The ERC is also willing to pay the costs of e.g. external visitors, workshops, conference,
provided that:
• The costs are directly linked to the project;
• the participation of experts have a scientific added value to the project;
• are in line with the host institution usual accounting principles;
• are reasonable costs and;
• recorded in the account of the host institute.
In the table the costs are budgeted and justified in writing under the table.
16.2.5 Justification of other host institutions

Top science involves collaborating with well-selected colleagues that bring in
complementary expertise. You can collaborate with colleagues within your university but
also internationally. Already from your methodology description is should be clear which
aspects of your proposal will be carried out elsewhere. In B2c Resources you have to
justify the costs and the need for this expertise.

17 – A Ethical Issues A-Form and Ethical Issues Annex
17. A Ethical Issues A-Form and Ethical Issues Annex
You have to identify possible ethical issues in your proposed research project by ticking
one or more times "yes" in the Ethical Issues Table in the A-form, see also Information for
Applicants Annex 4.
If you say YES to any of the specified ethical issues in the table in the A-form you have to
justify this in a separate annex to your proposal, the Ethical Issues Annex.
In case there is an ethical issue the applicant has to outline the benefit and the burden of
such research, the effects and how it will be managed. The ERC advises you to provide
the necessary documentations with the proposal. In particular check the ERC Information
for Applicants Annex 4, which provides a detailed list of ethical issues and the
considerations for providing a justifications as well as references to relevant directives.
Please note that SH proposals may have ethical issues as use of personal data and in
particular where SH proposal are of an interdisciplinary nature and incorporate for example
brain imaging or genetic analyses then you are expected to have approval from the
relevant Medical Ethics Committee.
The ERC in line with the H2020 directives has significantly increased the effort to comply
with the ethical directives therefore read very carefully the available documentation:
• ERC Information for Applicants, Annex 4 Specific Guidance Related to Ethics;
• ERC Information for Applicants, Annex 4 Ethics Issues Table - Checklist
• Ethical Issues Template
• Guidance Note for Researchers and Evaluators of Social Sciences and Humanities
Research 2010
17.1 Ethical Issues Annex and Checklist

The ERC has provided an excellent checklist to help you draft your Ethical Issues Annex.
The checklist includes Yes and No questions and guides you through these questions to
the information you have to provide in your Annex. The table below is a short summary on
all the ethical issues but is not as detailed as the checklist.
In this annex you:
• Describe the potential ethical aspects of the proposed research regarding its
objectives; the methodology and the possible implications of the results;
• Justify the design of the research project from an ethical viewpoint;
• Explain how the ethical requirements applicable to your project proposal will be
fulfilled in accordance with article 3 of the Ideas Specific Programme and including
those fundamental ethical principles reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union.
• Indicate how the proposal meets the national legal and ethical requirements of the
EU and/or the country where you perform your research; and
• Indicate or rather demonstrate that you have the authorisations needed in place so
that you project can start without delay. In the past there have been quite some
delays because the authorisation was not in place.

HUMANS
Which Humans are Are some Which are the Documents to provide
involved? interventions on procedures for - ethics authorisations
- Vulnerable persons the body foreseen? recruitment and - information and consent
- Persons unable to give - invasive techniques consent? form and consider children
consent (biopsy, EEG, becoming 18 during the
- Children < 18 fMRI) research
- Children becoming 18 - Patients? Healthy
volunteers?
DATA PROTECTION
Which data? Which procedure Documents to provide
- genetic data - procedure for collection - data protection officer
- sensitive data (health, - how, by whom, /authority authorisations
political or religious information on rights, - information and consent
opinions, sexual info and consent forms, forms
orientation, etc.) anonymisation - security measures
-?
CELLS AND TISSUES
What type? What for? Documents to provide
- hESCs - justification of use - ethics authorisations
- Foetal cells/tissues - origin: direct - information and consent
- Use or creation of collection/ forms
cells/cells lines biobanks - justification of right for
/secondary use secondary use
ANIMALS
Which animals are involved? For what use? Documents to provide
- Vertebrates - 3Rs, precise evaluation - ethics authorisations /
- GMOs of number project license
- Primates - Description of - personal and laboratory
- Wild / protected procedure, husbandry, licenses
animals anaesthesia,
euthanasia
- applicable legislation
NON EU COUNTRIES
Which countries? Export/import of Benefit sharing Documents to provide
- associated countries, ressources? measures for low - National and local ethics
low income, others? - which sources income countries authorisations
- to do what with? Whom (including data)? - Authorisations for
with? - export/import import/export
from/to EU - Contact with local
researchers/local authorities
BUT, if politically sensitive
research there can be
exceptions
MISUSE AND
SECURITY
Which threats? What for? Documents to provide
- health for team and/or - Justification - ethics authorisations
society - mitigation measures
- misuse risks/ terrorist - balance of rights
abuse
- dual use
- threats on human rights

Environment
Protection
Is the project taking Is the project using/collecting What for? Documents to
place in sensitive protected elements? - justification provide
areas? - oceans – Directive on Oceans? - measures to - ethics
- natural areas – Directive Habitat? minimize impact authorisations
- areas with endangered /protected - benefit of the - specific zone
species – Directive on birds, CITES research to the authorisations
convention? environment
Common problems Clinical trials:

• failure to justify human intervention from an ethical perspective,
• safeguard data protection,
• design of informed consent forms
Common problems Research on animals:

• failure to describe (i) numbers used; (ii) usefulness of animal model; or (iii)
alternatives for animal modelst
Common problems Data protection and privacy:

• codification, storage and anonymisaton of personal data
Common problems Issues related to children

• failure to describe if children obtain a real and direct benefit,
• if children are not directly benefiting, lack of demonstration that a minimum risk and
minimum burden is involved
17.2 Ethical Review Procedure

There are several steps involved in the review of ethical issues. This procedure is only
applicable to the proposals that have been positively ranked for funding. No grant
agreement can be concluded unless ethical clearance has been obtained. This means that
the following steps have to be concluded positively.
• Pre-screening by ERCEA Ethics team
• Ethical Screening by an Ethics Screening Panel. next phase..
• Ethical Review by Ethics Review Panel.
• Ethics Clearance by ERCEA Ethics Team

Source: powerpoint ERC, the Ethics Review, Ethics review procedures in H2020, NCP
meeting November 2013
Ethics Panels are composed of independent experts from a variety of disciplines such as
law, sociology, psychology, philosophy and ethics, medicine, molecular biology, chemistry,
physics, engineering, veterinary sciences with a reasonable balance of scientific and non-
scientific members.
In the Commission Decision 2010/767 the ethical procedure for Ideas Programme is
described: “External Projects raising important ethical issues identified during the Ethics
Screening are submitted to an Ethics Review Panel. Issues such as research interventions
on human beings, research on human embryos and human embryonic stem cells, and
non-human primates are automatically submitted to ethical review. The Ethics Review
Panel checks the ethical issues raised by a proposal and identifies the ethical
requirements to be met in order to clear the proposal from the ethical point of view. At this
stage the Ethics Review Panel may identify proposals that raise severe ethical issues that
may lead to exclusion of the project from the granting process.
The ERCEA ascertains that the applicants have received appropriate approval from the
national authority and/or favourable opinions from the competent ethics committee before
the signature of the grant agreement. Where the approval of the national authority and/or a
favourable opinion from a local ethical committee is/are not obtained before the start of the
grant agreement, the grant agreement includes a special clause requiring that the relevant
authorisation or opinion be obtained before the start of the corresponding research.
Ethics Follow/up and Audit
Proposals that undergo an Ethics Screening and/or an Ethics Review can be flagged by
the experts as requiring an Ethics Follow-up/Audit (EFA). An EFA is conducted by experts
specialised in ethical issues, not earlier than on the date of the first financial reporting
period for the proposal. The objective of the EFA procedure is to assist the grant
beneficiaries to deal with the ethical issues that are raised by their work and if necessary
take corrective measures.
In extreme cases, the EFA process may result in a recommendation to the ERCEA to
terminate a grant agreement. The organisation and implementation of the EFA procedure
are the responsibility of the Ethics Review Sector of the Commission (DG RTD).”

Annex A – Matching project proposal to evaluation criteria
Annex A. Matching project proposal to evaluation criteria

What and why/how questions
B1a: Extended Synopsis; B2: Part B2 of the proposal, IfA: Information for Applicants StG
2017
Scientific Excellence: Ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility

Proposal What question Why / How / When / Who Instructions in the Information for Applicants
part question
1) Important challenges?
B1a&B2 What is the Why is the challenge Key question: How and why (is) the proposed
main important for the field? Or, work important for the field?
challenge? And, What is its Significance Tip YR: place your project in the larger context of
What is the Or [So What is it that is so the importance for opening new research
Research important to Understand or directions, new lines of research
Question to Do before we can
Understand about this
Question]
2) Ambitious objectives (e.g. novel concepts and approaches or development across disciplines)?
B1a&B2 What are the Why are these objectives Key issue: Novel concept, novel approach and
objectives / ambitious and beyond the novel development across disciplines:
aims / specific state of the art? Tip YR: In wording and/or visual be able to
research present What the novel concept is.
questions
Further tip: Consider also the scope and focus of
What is the the project and why your project is key. What are
Why is this a novel
concept / key intermediate outcomes already important for
concept / approach or
approach / the field but without the high-gain the project
development
novel would be of too limited impact
development
3) To what extent is the proposed research high risk/high gain?
B1a&B2 What are the To what degree are these Keywords: Specify any particularly challenging or
risks and gain risks high or medium and unconventional aspects
elements? why?
To what degree are these Keywords: what impact it will have if successful
gains high or medium and AND opening up new horizons and novel
why? opportunities for science, technology or
scholarship.
Tip YR: Consider the potential results, the
contribution to the current state of the science in
your field and the impact on science and utility.
See also the YR tip above regarding key-
intermediate outcomes

Annex A – Matching project proposal to evaluation criteria
Scientific Approach
Proposal What question Why / How / When / Who Instructions in the Information for Applicants
part question
4) Feasibility?
B1a&B2 What is feasible Why is it feasible or IfA: Highlight any intermediate stages where
and how likely? provide back-up plans, results may require adjustments to the project
What does the mitigation plans planning
workplan look How will the objectives be Tip YR: Provide preliminary data, proof of
like? answered; What is the concept. Consider the objectives and results
technical, scientific, demonstrating achievements of your objectives.
scholarly detail? Include:
A workplan (What &How)
your past achievements and expertise,
research environment including colleagues and
technical infrastructure, and
team members and external partners
demonstrating the capacity for success.
5) Appropriate methodology?
B2 What is the Why is the methodology 1. Describe the methodology in sufficient detail
methodology? appropriate? including, as appropriate, key intermediate goals.
explain and justify the methodology in relation to
the state of the art
6) Novel methodology?
B2 What is the Why is this new IfA: Explain and justify any particularly novel or
novel methodology necessary? unconventional aspects.
methodology?
7) Necessary and justified timescales and resources?
B2 When are Why are these timescales Timescale is a time schedule of sorts
activities due? appropriate?
What are the Why are these resources 1. Describe the size and nature of the team,
available appropriate? (Who will be indicating, where appropriate, the key team
resources and involved) members and their roles;
requested ERC Describe other necessary resources, such as
resources infrastructure and equipment and
Specify briefly your commitment to the project and
how much time you are willing to devote to the
proposed project.

Annex B – EURECIA WP3 Survey Report
Annex B. EURECIA WP3 Survey Report

The ERC has launched a call for an analysis on the impact of ERC funding on the careers
of those who obtained a starting grant. The EURECIA project published their results in
January 2012. The analysis is based upon Call 2007 Starting Grants, PhD window 3-8
years, with a 2-step evaluation in which for step 1 more than 9.000 short proposal where
submitted. From the laureates of 2007 approximately 20 projects have been selected with
20 controls from projects not selected in step 2. Up to date, July 2015, almost 5.000
agreements have been concluded, therefore the question is how relevant the findings are
for this call. Use these findings as a source of inspiration rather than a generic rule.
Planned innovations:
EURECIA defines innovations as research findings that affect the research practices of a
large number of researchers in one or more fields (i.e. choices of problems, methods or
empirical objects). About half of the grantees interviewed planned such innovations and
promised them in the grant proposal. Three forms were distinguished:
• the development of new methods which, when applicable, will provide new research
opportunities to many members of the community.
• A second type of planned innovation, which occurs across all discipline groups,
promises to significantly enhance the empirical basis of a community’s research by
providing access to new empirical objects that will become central to the
community’s research. Similar to the development of new broadly applicable
methods, the provision of new empirical objects opens up new research
opportunities for a community.

• A third type aimed at general explanations which, once achieved, will alter the
community’s understanding of its empirical objects. Examples would include the
search for a mechanism that influences protein biosynthesis or for general patterns
of plant adaptation.
Answers to ‘big questions’

Answers to ‘big questions’ are characteristic for the social sciences and humanities. A
typical ‘big question’ is more general than a common research question of the social
sciences and humanities and needs to be answered on an exceptionally broad theoretical,
methodological or empirical basis. Researchers would, for example, study a major society-
shaping historical process by incorporating all available sources across languages,
locations, and types of sources for the relevant period of time. Three grantees and one
unsuccessful applicant had designed research projects that addressed such big questions
of their respective fields.
Recent discoveries
Several projects planned to exploit recent innovations; serendipitous discoveries (two
discoveries of effects and one discovery of a new empirical object), which meet the
definition of an innovation. These recent innovations were serendipitous discoveries.
Naturally, innovations of this type cannot be aimed for with ERC grants (or any other
grants). Serendipitous discoveries occur in the course of research without being
anticipated at the beginning of a project. They result from unexpected observations during
experiments, or they emerge as ideas triggered by the current research. Serendipitous
discoveries are innovations if they affect research practices of a large number of
researchers from a field.
Contradicting the majority opinion

Several projects contradicted the majority opinion, either by attempting something the
community considers impossible or by addressing problems that were considered as
irrelevant by the community.
Addressing a community’s blind spots

Another version of non-mainstream research addresses a community’s ‘blind spot’ by
doing something that does not at all contradict any majority opinion but has not yet been
done because nobody else seems to have thought of it.
Applying non-mainstream approaches or methods to mainstream problems

A third non-mainstream relationship occurs when projects apply non-mainstream
approaches or methods to mainstream problems.
Linking previously separate communities

Finally, non-mainstream research includes attempts to link communities that have no
previous epistemic connections. Such links are created by combining approaches from two
communities in one experiment, or by demonstrating the relevance of one community’s
empirical object to the research of the other community.
Combinations of the above

These versions of non-mainstream research are not mutually exclusive. The link between
two communities may be a blind spot for both, the application of nonmainstream methods
to mainstream problems may contradict the majority opinion, and so on. Several of the

investigated projects fell into more than one category of non-mainstream research
including one that fell into all four.
‘Local’ properties of the research

In addition to its relationships to the field, the research of our interviewees also has ‘local’
properties, i.e. properties that characterise the individual research process.
In the empirical investigation undertaken by EURECIA it was found that in some cases
there were indivisible resource requirements, i.e. necessary conditions that cannot be
created partly but are met either fully or not at all. Three types of such indivisible resource
requirements were found, namely the need for complex task-specific equipment, the need
for complex task-specific approaches, and a long ‘Eigentime’ of the research. Two further
important properties are the strategic and technical uncertainties inherent to research.
Complex task-specific equipment

The generation or observation of empirical objects required a complicated large instrument
or the integration of several instruments into a task specific experimental system.
Interestingly, all such requirements refer to projects.
Complex task-specific approaches

In the social sciences and humanities an equivalent to the need for complex task-specific
equipment in the natural sciences was observed. In these projects, complex task specific
approaches took the form of the integration of different approaches in an ‘interdisciplinary’
group, in which the joint work on a common subject matter requires the co-presence of
researchers mastering these approaches during the whole time of the project.
‘Interdisciplinary’ is meant here in the weakest possible sense and may include the
mastery of different languages or the familiarity with different types of sources. This co-
presence requirement can be traced to the central role of the human mind in the selection
and interpretation of empirical evidence. Approaches in the social sciences and humanities
are often holistic. This is why collaborative designs that define sequential, sub-task specific
contributions of collaborators who may be separated in space are not applicable.
Long ‘Eigentime’
The ‘Eigentime’ of a research process is defined by material properties of empirical objects
and research technologies, for example growth and reproduction cycles of biological
objects. In our analysis, we found one example for an unusually long ‘Eigentime’, namely a
project that included the observation of a biological process that takes years and required
an observation time of at least three years. A specific epistemic property of some research
processes, which we assume to be an equivalent of ‘Eigentime’ in the humanities and non-
empirical sciences, is the need for uninterrupted research time. All knowledge about the
research object must be constantly kept and actualised in the mind of the researcher,
which makes it extremely difficult to enter the necessary ‘research mode’. In more
technical terms, the properties of the human mind as the major research tool create the
necessity to constantly ‘run’ – engage in research - without interruption by other tasks,
because each interruption requires a major recalibration.
Strategic uncertainty
An important and very consequential epistemic property of research is its uncertainty.
Strategic uncertainty is the uncertainty concerning the existence of an outcome. Effects
might either not exist at all or not be observable with the current experimental setting.
Attempts to generalise effects might fail because what has been found is idiosyncratic.

Technical uncertainty
Technical uncertainty refers to the lack of knowledge about the way in which a certain goal
can be achieved. The building of experiments might include a lot of trial-and error
manipulation of equipment before the intended effects can be achieved. Stages of
experiments might fail, either because the outcome is partly random or because the
experimental conditions cannot be fully controlled. The equivalent in the social sciences
and humanities is a situation in which data that are necessary for answering the question
cannot be found in time.

Annex C – Ethical Glossary
Annex C. Ethical Glossary
Cordis Glossary on ethical issues:

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.FP6GlossaryPage
RS-Web glossary:
http://www.rsweb.org.uk/ethics/glossary.html
Medcert Glossary:
http://www.medcert.de/index/glossary.php
Glossary Lawrence M. Hinman, Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory:

http://ethics.acusd.edu/LMH/E2/Glossary.asp
Roche Trial Registry:

http://www.roche-trials.com/results/glossary.html
Sustainable Product Development Glossary

http://spd.bournemouth.ac.uk/html/glossary_social.html
Ethics
Ethics is the science of morals in human conduct.
Environmental ethics
Environmental ethics is the ethics of medical, biological and environmental intervention.
Bioethics or biomedical ethics

The study and/or application of ethics that result from technological scientific advances in
the areas of biological sciences, medicine, genetics, healthcare and public policies.
Biotechnology
Any technique that uses living organisms or substances from organisms, biological
systems, or processes to make or modify products, to improve plants and animals, or to
develop micro-organisms for specific use. Historically, biotechnology has had an impact in
three main areas: health, food/agriculture and environmental protection.
Informed consent
The voluntary verification of an individual’s willingness to participate in research, along with
the documentation thereof. This verification is requested only after complete, objective
information has been given about the research, including an explanation of the research
objectives, potential benefits, risks and inconveniences, available alternatives, and of the
individual's rights and responsibilities.
Human rights
Human Rights are based on the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all human beings. They are defined in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (1948), which is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
At the European level, Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union reaffirms that the
European Union "is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the
Member States". In addition the European Convention of Human Rights adopted by the
Council of Europe is legally binding in all Member States. Moreover, the European Charter
of Fundamental Rights adopted in Nice in December 2000 is the instrument inspiring
respect for fundamental rights by the European institutions and the Member States where
they act under Union law.
Law, regulations and rules

Moral or legal codes of conduct. It can be used to refer to legislation of the Member States,
moral guidelines either written in nature or the hearts of all people or simply developed
individually as part of a person value system.
Legalism
An ethical system which contains rules for every situation and/or the association of doing
good with simply following those rules.
Declaration of Helsinki
A series of guidelines adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly in Helsinki, Finland in
1964. The Declaration addresses ethical issues for physicians conducting biomedical
research involving human subjects. Recommendations include the procedures required to
ensure subject safety in clinical trials, including informed consent and Ethics Committee
reviews.
International Committee of Harmonisation

This alliance of the European Union, the U.S., and Japan was formed to ensure that good-
quality, safe, and effective medicines are developed and registered in the most efficient
and cost-effective ways. These activities are pursued to prevent unnecessary duplication
of clinical trials and to minimize the use of animal testing without compromising the
regulatory obligations of safety and effectiveness
Good Clinical Practise

International ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, conducting, monitoring,
recording, auditing, analyzing and reporting studies. GCP insures that the data reported is
credible and accurate, and that subject's rights and confidentiality are protected.
Ethics Committee or competent authority

An independent body (a review board or a committee, institutional, regional, national, or
supranational), constituted of medical/scientific professionals and non-medical/non-
scientific members, whose responsibility it is to ensure the protection of the rights, safety
and well-being of human subjects involved in research and to provide public assurance of
that protection, by, among other things, reviewing and approving/providing favourable
opinion on, the research proposal, the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and the
methods and material to be used in obtaining and documenting informed consent of the
research subjects. The legal status, composition, function, operations and regulatory
requirements pertaining to Independent Ethics Committees may differ among countries,
but should allow the Independent Ethics Committee to act in agreement with GCP.

Ethical monitoring and audit

Participants in a project must describe the ethical implications of the research and, must
comply with international, European and national legislation, including ethical rules.
Reviewing a research project, ensuring conduct, proper records and reports are performed
in compliance with the applicable EU requirements, including ethical issues.
On commission level: An ethical review will be implemented systematically in the

evaluation phase by the Commission for proposals dealing with ethically sensitive issues.
The European Commission services will carry out an ethical review of those research
projects containing ethically sensitive questions. During the performance of the research
project, in some cases, ethical monitoring may take place.
At project level: Participants should take regular, complete and documented

measurements of compliance with the International, EU and national law, regulations and
codes of conduct.
Conflict of interest
A person has a conflict of interest when the person is in a position of trust which requires
her to exercise judgment on behalf of others (people, institutions, etc.) and also has
interests or obligations of the sort that might interfere with the exercise of her judgment,
and which the person is morally required to either avoid or openly acknowledge.

Annex D – ERC Database, finding project descriptions
Annex D. ERC Database, finding project descriptions
The abstracts of the granted ERC proposals are available on the ERC website. Eventually
all winning proposals will be uploaded to this database.
ERC website:
Start: http://erc.europa.eu/projects-and-results/erc-funded-projects
If you want to find a specific project, first go to the Chapter 5, Overview Awarded Grants
which you have most likely received in electronic format. In this overview the acronyms per
project are provided. Go to the ERC database (find a project).
Key word: insert the Acronym
Please note there are several project databases (Starting, Consolidator or Advanced) so
you may have to change the database.
A short description of the project will pop up, including the full abstract, the name of the
awardee and host institute (with which the project proposal is submitted) and the budget
awarded. Sometimes also the project website and publications are listed.

Binder ERC 2017 - 2018 Sevilla Workshop - SKR PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Binder ERC 2017 - 2018 Sevilla Workshop - SKR PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writing a competitive

Chapter 1 Yellow Research credentials

Chapter 2 Handout presentation

Chapter 3 Guide ERC Grant 2017 calls

We have accumulated years of practical experience in developing and managing the

Beside our strong expertise in EU Framework Programmes we have been

The Training we offer:

H2020 Workshops Other workshops

H2020 in general Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorates

ERC Interview Training NWO Vernieuwingsimpuls (Veni, Vidi, Vici)

Exploitation and dissemination strategies for EU

Financial Management Clinical research, legal & ethical aspects

Building a consortium for H2020 Running a Technology Transfer Unit

• Project pre-review in conformity with the grant requirements. We do this for a

• Project design for Collaborative Research

• Legal services: from consortium agreements to writing biobank regulations

• Business development: protection and exploitation strategies for intellectual

Her extensive knowledge on drafting consortium agreements, research agreements,

In addition, Mette has experience as a reviewer for the European Commission

ERC Grants Call

Bringing great ideas to life

Dr. Mette Skraastad skraastad@yellowresearch.nl

Aya van den Kroonenberg, PhD vandenkroonenberg@

Lotte Jaspers jaspers@yellowresearch.nl

Jet van Dijk vandijk@yellowresearch.nl

 Context ERC programme

 Evaluation criteria and procedure

 Cover page and abstract: focus on understanding aim

 Part B1 Extended synopsis: focus on what and why

 Part B1 Principal Investigator

 Part B2 Scientific Proposal: focus on how and why

 Guide “Information for applicants” – to be published

Part I: Part II: Part III:

Excellent Science Industrial Societal Challenges

FET ring and processing energy

 To provide attractive, long-term funding …to pursue ground-

 In any field of science, engineering and scholarship (except

Eligibility Principal Investigator

Eligibility Principal Investigator

 apply for funding independently;

See page 10 of the ERC Work Programme 2017

Eligibility Host institute

 Engage the PI for at least the duration of the project;

See page 17 of the ERC Work Programme 2017

Terms used in Information for Applicants

Eligibility period: Extension

StG and CoG 2017 AG 2017

 Evidence: PDF of birth certificate of child and/or other ’proofing documents’.

ERC call 2017: Structure and Budget

Publication 19 July ’16 20 Oct ’16 16 May ’17

Deadlines ‘17 18 Oct ’16 9 Feb ’17 31 Aug ’17

Brussels time 17:00 17:00 17:00

Keywords 8-21 keywords per panel

Budget ±605M StG ±575M CoG ±567M AdG

The ERC panels

3. Cellular and Developmental Biology

A1 – form: Panels and Keywords

Step 2: Initial registration: ERC Keyword 1: Mandatory link to primary panel

Step 3: Characterizing the subject of the proposal

Step 4: Indicating Scope & Selecting Remote Reviewers

Choosing the right panel

 Each keyword represents a research area

ERC Proposal structure