ro hu


Fp7 - Ideas - 2009 - ERC Advanced Investigators Grant
Határidő:  06.05. 2009
Feltöltve:  2008. december 19., 16:14:05
Szakmai terület: 
Ország:  Románia
Forrás:  []

Call Title: Call for proposals for ERC Advanced Investigators Grant
Call identifier: ERC-2009-AdG
Date of publication: 19 November 2008
Electronic proposal submission deadlines (single submission of full proposal):

Panels: PE1 - PE10 (Physical Sciences & Engineering), 25 March 2009, 17.00.00 (Brussels local time)
Panels: SH1 – SH6 (Social Sciences & Humanities), 15 April 2009, 17.00.00 (Brussels local time)
Panels: LS1 – LS9 (Life Sciences), 6 May 2009, 17.00.00 (Brussels local time)

Indicative budget: EUR 489 538 000 from 2009 budget.

The ERC Scientific Council has established the following indicative percentage budgets for each of the 3 main research domains:

Physical Sciences & Engineering: 39%
Life Sciences: 34%
Social Sciences & Humanities: 14%
and an Interdisciplinary domain with an indicative budget of 13%.

The Community financial contribution shall be in the form of a grant to the budget corresponding to 100% of the total eligible and approved direct costs and a contribution of 20% of the total eligible direct costs.
Indicative budgets may permit a variation of the budget for each domain by a maximum of 10% of the total budget for the call; however the budget proportions allocated to projects in the three main research domains will be no lower than the percentages indicated. In addition, the final budget awarded per ERC call, following the evaluation of projects, may vary by up to 10% of the total value of the call if additional appropriations become available.

Activity: European Research Council Advanced Grant

Who can apply for an ERC grant?

Guiding principles of ERC grant schemes
○  Scientific excellence is the sole selection criterion
○  Projects in all fields of research are eligible for funding
○  Individual research teams led by a single PI are supported
○  Significant funding is provided to attract the established and next generation of exceptional research leaders
○  Grants are awarded to the host institution that engages the PI
○  The host institution guarantees the PI’s independence and provides the research environment to carry out the project and manage its funding

The Principal Investigator (PI)

ERC grants support projects which are carried out by individual research teams headed by a single Principal Investigator (PI) of any nationality and, if necessary, include additional team members. These teams may be of national or trans-national character. With the focus on the PI, the concept of individual team is fundamentally different from that of a traditional 'network' or 'research consortium'; proposals of the latter type will not be accepted.
The PI does not necessarily need to be employed by the host institution at the time when the proposal is submitted.
If not already employed by the host institution, the PI must be engaged by the latter at least for the duration of the grant.

ERC-funded PIs are supposed to be strongly committed to the project and devote a significant amount of time to the project: in the case of the Starting Grant the ERC-funded project should represent the PI's main workload, whereas in the case of the Advanced Grant the Scientific Council would expect the PI to devote at least 30% of its workload to the ERC- funded project while spending at least 50% of his/her total workload in Europe (EU Member State or Associated Country).

The host institution

An ERC grant is awarded to the host institution (applicant legal entity) that engages and hosts the PI, with the attached commitment that this host institution offers appropriate conditions for the PI to direct independently the research and manage its funding for the duration of the project. These conditions, including the 'portability' of the project, are the subject of an agreement between the PI and the host institution (supplementary to the ERC Grant Agreement) and are described in the ERC Model Grant Agreement.
It is a condition for all ERC funding that the host institution commits to the following conditions of independence , ensuring that the PI may:
- 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 invite as co-authors only those who have contributed substantially to the reported work
- supervise team members, including research students, doctoral students or others
- have access to reasonable space and facilities for conducting the research

The host institution can be any legal entity (public or private), which has the infrastructure and capacity to carry out a frontier research project, such as a university, a research organisation or a research-performing company. Research-performing companies can host a PI as long as the PI's independence is not constrained by the research strategy of the company.

Individual Team, Team Members, Co-Investigators

The constitution of the individual research team is flexible. Commonly, it involves otherresearchers - such as senior researchers, post docs, graduate and PhD students - from the PI's research group or from the same institution as "team members". However, depending on the nature of a project the research team may also involve team members from other research institutions situated in the same or a different country. Therefore, research teams can be of national or trans-national character. Team members can be of any age, nationality and country of residence. Team members operate under the leadership of the PI, including those team members hosted by other institutions.
Institutions of team members may be located in any country, including non-European third countries. Their participation (and possible funding to support the work of the respective team members) is subject to appraisal by the ERC peer review evaluation panels, which assess whether their involvement is properly justified and essential in terms of scientific competence and capacities.
Non-academic staff may also be involved as constituents of an individual team, such as technicians, or secretarial support staff, but are not considered as team members.
As an exception for ERC Advanced Grants applications, when an interdisciplinary proposal is grounded in the necessary combination of knowledge and skills from more than one discipline, a PI may identify members of his/her individual team, who are active in these disciplines, as “co-investigators”. Co-investigators are team members who
have specific complementary expertise in rather different scientific areas or disciplines than the PI. However, similar to the PI of an Advanced Grant application, its co-investigator(s) are expected to be active researchers with an outstanding track record of significant research achievements in the last 10 years. Co-investigators enable the realisation of unconventional methodological approaches beyond established disciplinary areas.
To further promote and support such interdisciplinary research proposals, the ERC introduced the option to propose larger projects: PIs of such “co-investigator projects” mayrequest larger ERC grants for their interdisciplinary project proposal. The host institution of a co-investigator must be located in an EU Member State or an Associated Country.
The peer review evaluation panel will carefully assess the interdisciplinary nature of a proposed co-investigator project and the scientific added value and expertise of any co- investigator to the project; in particular the participation of any additional institution (legal entity) will only be permitted if it is clearly necessary from the scientific perspective.

What costs are covered by an ERC grant?

An ERC grant can cover up to 100% of the total eligible direct costs of the research plus a contribution towards indirect costs, which cannot exceed 20% of the total eligible directcosts (excluding the direct eligible costs for subcontracting and the costs of reimbursement of resources made available by third parties which are not used on the premises of the
beneficiary). The costs which can be covered by an ERC grant are described in Box .

Evaluation procedure
• The evaluation will take place in two steps following the single submission of a full proposal.
• The evaluation is carried out through evaluation panels that may be assisted by referees.
• The allocation of the proposals to the various panels will be based on the expressed preference of the applicant. In case of interdisciplinary proposals the panel may request additional reviews by appropriate members of other panel(s) or additional referees who act as reserve evaluators.

• Step 1: Following the submission of the proposal, Section 1 of the proposal will be assessed and marked.
• Proposals may be evaluated remotely.
• If necessary, and in order to assure the quality of the evaluation in the case of heavy over- subscription to the call, the evaluation panels may identify the less competitive applications which do not reach the minimum quality threshold(s) by assessing the proposals on the basis of the 10-year track-record of the Principal Investigator (requested summary), the summary of the Scientific
Leadership Profile and the project’s Extended Synopsis.
• With the agreement of the individual reviewers to whom the proposals have been allocated, these proposals will not be further evaluated, allowing the panel focus on thorough evaluation of the retained proposals.
• At the end of this evaluation of step 1, the panel will rank the proposals according to their marks. An indicative budget will be allocated to each panel, in proportion to the budgetary demand of its assigned proposals. 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.
• Each panel will determine its budgetary cut-off level as a multiple of its indicative budget. The budgetary cut-off level should be approximately 3 times the panel's indicative budget. Proposals with a mark passing the quality threshold and which lie above the budgetary cut-off level will be retained and pass to step 2 of evaluation (all proposals with identical marks at the cut off level will pass through to the second step of evaluation). Those proposals failing to reach the quality threshold on any of the evaluation criteria or ranked below the budgetary cut-off described above will be rejected.
• The complete version of the retained proposals will be assessed and ranked by the panels during step 2 of the evaluation. Interdisciplinary proposals within a domain or across domains will be flagged as such, and the panel may request additional reviews by appropriate members of other panel(s) or additional referees who act as reserve evaluators.
• Following the conclusion of the panel evaluations the following additional steps will be taken with the participation of the evaluation peer review evaluation panel chairs:
Step 2a: Acting in concert, the peer review evaluation panel chairs of each research domain or their deputies, representing their panels, will prepare a consolidated ranked list for the domain's proposals which are above the quality threshold and can be funded in order of priority from the respective domain budgets .
Step 2b: Acting in concert across the 3 main research domains, taking account of the forward looking and innovative nature of the programme, all the peer review evaluation panel chairs or their deputies will bring forth and specifically discuss, from an interdisciplinary perspective, the scientific added value of proposals above the quality threshold which are of interdisciplinary nature. In order to establish the ranked list of the Interdisciplinary Research domain, all peer review evaluation panel chairs will further assess these proposals on the basis of the second evaluation criterion (Research project). Any funds still available in any of the 4 domains, after exhausting the list of proposals over the quality threshold, will be distributed to the other 3 domains according to the initial call budget breakdown.
Finally, a number of proposals (over the quality threshold) in the 4 domain lists may also be kept in reserve to allow for eventualities such as the failure of the granting procedure to projects, the withdrawal of proposals, budget savings agreed during the granting procedure, or the availability of additional budget from other sources. Additional funds will also be distributed according to the initial call budget breakdown.

Evaluation criteria: See the work programme for the applicable criteria

For more information:

- Call Fiche
- Giude for Applicants
- Work Programme

PONT hírek

Strukturális alapok


PONT Szakértok

Think Outside The Box

Romániában lehet Európa legnagyobb természetvédelmi területe
Elkezdték az állami erdőkben a csemeteültetéseket Hargita megyében
Az Ikea és a Harvard legalább olyan nagy hazai erdőmutyiban érintett, mint a Schweighofer
Ennél lila kenyeret? Ilyet egész biztosan!
Kevesebb húst kellene fogyasztani, milliók menekülnének meg