ERC typical last minute mistakes

Time is always of the essence when it comes to grant writing and meeting deadlines, but this year’s ERC 2021 Starting and Consolidator Grants have their own unique constraints. In years past, it was mostly the Consolidator Grant deadline that required extra timely considerations. But, this year both Starting and Consolidator deadlines are calling for even stricter time management and early preparations. Read on and take three important points into consideration.

So​ ​ you​ ​ have​ ​ decided​ ​ to​ ​ apply​ ​ for​ ​ an​ ​ ERC​ ​ grant.​ ​ Now​ ​ begins​ ​ the​ ​ planning​ ​ and drafting​ ​ period.​ ​ Since​ ​ the​ ​ ERC​ ​ application​ ​ has​ ​ no​ ​ formal​ ​ structure,​ ​ many​ ​ researchers that​ ​ wish​ ​ to​ ​ apply​ ​ struggle​ ​ with​ ​ the​ ​ best​ ​ way​ ​ to​ ​ present​ ​ their​ ​ idea​ ​ and​ ​ to​ ​ write​ ​ the application.​ ​ If​ ​ you​ ​ have​ ​ past​ ​ experience​ ​ with​ ​ writing​ ​ research​ ​ grants​ ​ or​ ​ articles,​ ​ you may​ ​ think​ ​ to​ ​ write​ ​ in​ ​ the​ ​ same​ ​ manner​ ​ for​ ​ the​ ​ ERC​ ​ application.​ ​ But​ ​ then​ ​ there​ ​ are those​ ​ shiny​ ​ winning​ ​ proposals​ ​ that​ ​ could​ ​ possibly​ ​ offer​ ​ some​ ​ guiding​ ​ tips.​ ​ The​ ​ ones that​ ​ successfully​ ​ passed​ ​ all​ ​ application​ ​ criteria.​ ​ Those​ ​ which​ ​ stood​ ​ against​ ​ some​ ​ of the​ ​ hardest​ ​ reviewers​ ​ and​ ​ their​ ​ questions.​ ​ These​ ​ winning​ ​ proposals​ ​ could​ ​ possibly be​ ​ your​ ​ guiding​ ​ light​ ​ to​ ​ your​ ​ own​ ​ winning​ ​ proposal.​ ​ Should​ ​ you​ ​ do​ ​ it?​ ​ ​ ​ Will​ ​ looking​ ​ at winning​ ​ proposals​ ​ actually​ ​ help​ ​ to​ ​ increase​ ​ your​ ​ chances​ ​ at​ ​ securing​ ​ a​ ​ winning proposal​ ​ of​ ​ your​ ​ own? We​ ​ can​ ​ entirely​ ​ understand​ ​ and​ ​ encourage​ ​ the​ ​ mindset​ ​ to​ ​ get​ ​ inspired​ ​ by​ ​ talking​ ​ to ERC​ ​ grantees​ ​ or​ ​ drawing​ ​ ideas​ ​ by​ ​ looking​ ​ at​ ​ funded​ ​ ERC​ ​ projects.​ ​ But,​ ​ past experience​ ​ with​ ​ ERC​ ​ grants​ ​ has​ ​ brought​ ​ us​ ​ to​ ​ a​ ​ very​ ​ important​ ​ conclusion:​ ​ ​ ​ one should​ ​ be​ ​ careful​ ​ when​ ​ trying​ ​ to​ ​ imitate​ ​ a​ ​ winning​ ​ proposal.​ ​ We​ ​ want​ ​ to​ ​ share​ ​ with you​ ​ why​ ​ this​ ​ is​ ​ not​ ​ advised.

PRIO Paper, 2019

Grants from the European Research Council (ERC) stand out in the landscape of research funding. They’re awarded on the basis of ‘excellence’ alone, in a joint evaluation of the project and the applicant. Recipients lead a project team for up to five years, in an aura of accomplishment and with the freedom to pursue a scientific passion. Starting my own ERC project marked the end of a five-year rollercoaster journey. In this essay I use experiences from that ride to reflect on the work of developing a proposal and to extract advice for future applicants. Grants from the ERC represent academia at its most competitive and individualistic. But, like most other grantees, I have benefitted from being part of mutually supportive communities. Sharing my experience is a way of extending this spirit. The most important lessons I have learned concern the narrativity of the proposal. These insights are illustrated by the cover photo: images, like text, can have a high degree of narrativity, invoking a sense of temporally and causally related events. In the text I use examples of funded proposals to pin down what characterizes a narrative hook that conveys specific and persuasive innovation – the ‘ground-breaking’ essence that the ERC calls for. There is no blueprint for succeeding with ERC funding. Every project is different and the evaluation necessarily has a strong element of arbitrariness. However, the process of writing a proposal can be a rewarding experience regardless of the outcome. It takes thorough thinking about what research can be, why it can make a difference, and how it can be depicted with well-chosen words and carefully crafted sentences.

Throughout the years, our team continues to encounter one repeating issue with countless ERC applicants regarding the ERC grant writing phase of their grant proposal. In general, grant writing is the bread and butter of any researcher. Therefore, the ERC application will surely not be a first attempt at applying for funding. Some researchers already have impressive experience with writing and applying for other funding schemes. As a result, they already have substantial resources (ideas, plans and written material) available for any upcoming grant opportunity. When such an opportunity for a new grant arises, recycling, or rather ‘re-using’, previous grants applications seems to be the natural choice. Though this may work in many instances – ERC grant writing requires much different attention. Clearly stated: recycling (almost any) past grant application into an ERC application should be strongly reconsidered. In most cases these “recycled applications” are not successful. Now, let’s understand exactly why.

ERC projects are expected to introduce significant high gain to the scientific ecosystem (and beyond). Such "high-gain" essentially means that the impact of the project should not be limited to the specific, tangible and direct outcomes of the project. Instead, it is also assessed in view of what would be possible beyond the scope of the project, based on breakthroughs achieved by the project. For this reason, ERC proposals should be seen as "open-ended" research projects. Since this far-sighted approach is not a common expectation in most funding schemes, its meaning and implications are often elusive to researchers aiming to acquire ERC funding. In this present article, we'll define the open-ended nature of ERC, and suggest ways to implement and assess this when establishing your ERC project proposal.

A prevailing comment responsible for the failure of many ERC AdG (Advanced) applications (though also found in Starting and Consolidator grants) pertains to the ‘incremental nature’ of the proposed research. Why is that? How can one successfully design a project which reflects the naturally occurring progress forward which builds on past achievements, current knowledge, expertise, and preliminary results, while at the same time conforming to the ‘non-incremental’ ERC unofficial requirement?

Our most initial communications with new researchers working on Horizon Europe or ERC grant proposals include an overview of the expected evaluation process for each respective grant. Such an overview is based on our experience working with countless grant applications (also from the previous Horizon 2020 program) and allows us to track winning grant proposals and note a repeating structure for success. It often happens, during such initial communications, that a researcher will comment on a peer or colleague who did not follow the presented regular practice and recommendations and nevertheless was awarded the grant they were after. It is exactly at this point that we want to make an important distinction between such ‘winning’ grants exceptions and those that won as well but followed the more customary paths. In this post, we’ll address this issue, refer to its “distorting effect”, and offer our recommendations for success. **Keep in mind – as the new Horizon Europe program has only recently launched, we are basing our experience on the previous Horizon 2020 funding scheme. Nonetheless, we stress that this “distorting effect” can occur during the new Horizon Europe program as well, and to take full attention to the text below.

Excluding the ​ ERC Synergy grant​ , ERC grants are personal. This means that the ​ ERC AdG​ , ​ CoG and StG projects cannot be collaborative efforts. Since many applicants are used to working in collaboration with their peers and colleagues – this comes as a contrast and strikes as counter-intuitive. In many other grants, collaborations are common and even encouraged. In ERC, excluding the PI's direct team members, collaborators are normally not welcome to the research effort. The previous sentence is not unequivocal. Working with many ERC applicants enables us to track specific instances for which collaborations in ERC were in fact acceptable and even needed. In light of this apparent controversy, many applicants are unsure if their collaborative inclusion would help or hurt their application. Both a conceptual understanding of when collaborations are perceived positively, and a practical understanding of how this should be presented in the application, is needed to get it right. For this reason, we'll address below exactly when collaborations in ERC are acceptable and how best to manage them.

Applying for a Horizon Europe or ERC funding scheme is truly a long and meticulous process. It goes without saying that the content of the proposal is the most important aspect. But, second to the content are the visual aspects of the proposal. Such visual aspects can create a positive reading experience which guide the reviewer to key points of the proposal. On the contrary, lack of attention to the application’s visual flow can create a messy, confusing and unpleasant experience. In this article, we’ll review our top tips for acquiring a visually-successful grant application.

2003