Displaying 141 - 150 of 172. Show 5 | 10 | 20 | 40 | 60 results per page.
Q: Under FP7, if a Principal Investigator's salary is not charged to the ERC grant, is (s)he expected to keep time records?
A:

Although in principle Principal Investigators do not need to keep time records if their salary is not charged to an FP7 ERC grant, they should be able to provide evidence of their compliance with the time commitment requirements provided in the corresponding Work Programme (see ERC Work Programmes here).

Q: For ERC projects under FP7, is the use of timesheets mandatory?
A:

In FP7, costs of actual hours worked should be substantiated by a time recording system or by alternative evidence providing the same level of reliability as to the reality, accuracy and completeness of the information provided, to allow auditors to verify the financial reports.If a person works 100% on a project and has a contract to this effect, in the absence of timesheets, other appropriate and sufficient alternative evidence to support the declared work arrangements should be provided, provided that it is compliant with the usual practices of the beneficiary.

Q: For ERC projects under FP7, is there a minimum time to be spent on the office premises by the staff recruited for the project so that staff costs are eligible?
A:

For FP7 projects, the time necessary to be spent in the office by the staff recruited for the project depends on the rules of the Host Institution and the applicable national legislation. However, according to Article II.15.1 of the General Conditions to the ERC Grant Agreements (Single and Multi-Beneficiary), only the costs of the actual hours worked by the persons directly carrying out work under the project can be charged.

Q: Under FP7, can a retired researcher be paid out of an ERC grant? Which form can the payment take?
A:

In FP7, payments for retired researchers can be charged to the project if they are in line with applicable national law and practice, as well as with the specific rules applicable to and in the Host Institution.
Costs must also be compliant with the eligibility criteria of Article II.14 of the General Conditions to the ERC Grant Agreement (Single and Multi-Beneficiary).
The payments should be made via the Human Resources Payroll system.

Q: Are the open access related rules that apply to ERC grantee any different from those that apply to researchers funded under the rest of Horizon 2020?
A:

Indeed, although most of the rules applicable to other researchers funded under Horizon 2020 also apply in the same way to researchers funded by the ERC, there are a number of differences. In particular, in the case of the ERC the open access obligations described in Article 29.2 of the Model Grant Agreement apply not only to articles in scientific journals, but also to long-text publications such as monographs, edited volumes, or book chapters.
An overview of the open access related rules for ERC funded researchers can be found on the ERC website. Note that Article 29.2 of the ERC Model Grant Agreement is slightly different from the corresponding article in the general Horizon 2020 Model Grant Agreement. Details on the application of the article to ERC grants can be found in the ERC specific part of the Annotated Model Grant Agreement.

Q: What type of feedback will I be receiving during and after the evaluation of my proposal submitted to the ERC Consolidator Grant 2018 (ERC-2018-CoG) call?
A:

During each step of the ERC Consolidator Grant 2018 evaluation, the two main elements of the proposal (Principal Investigator and research project) will be evaluated and rated. At the end of each evaluation step the proposals will be ranked by the panels on the basis of the marks they have received and on the panels' overall appreciation of each proposal's strengths and weaknesses.
At the end of Step 1 of the evaluation, on the basis of the assessment of Part B1 of the proposal, applicants will be informed that their proposal:
A. is of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation;
B. is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation; or
C. is not of sufficient quality to pass to Step 2 of the evaluation.
 
At the end of Step 2 of the evaluation, on the basis of the assessment of the full proposal, applicants will be informed that their proposal either:
A. fully meets the ERC's excellence criterion and is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are available; or
B. meets some but not all elements of the ERC's excellence criterion and will not be funded.
 
More information on the results of the peer review evaluation can be found at section 3.7 of the ERC Rules for Submission and Evaluation.
Applicants may also be subject to restrictions on submitting proposals to future ERC calls based on the outcome of the evaluation. Applicants will need to check the restrictions in place for each call (see restrictions on submission of proposals under 'Eligibility criteria'of the ERC Work Programme 2018).
In addition, once the evaluation of their proposal has been completed, applicants will receive an evaluation report which will include the ranking range of their proposal out of the proposals evaluated by the panel (for more details, see Information for applicants to the Starting and Consolidator Grant 2018 Calls).

More information on the evaluation procedure can also be found in the ERC Work Programme 2018 section relevant to the call.

Q: Should the applicant provide the names and the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of the team members in the proposal for the ERC Consolidator Grant 2018 (ERC-2018-CoG) call?
A:

The CVs of individual team members should not be included. Although, it is not mandatory to provide the names of individual team members, the proposal should describe the composition of the team that will carry out the proposed activities.
Further explanations can be found in the Information for the applicants of the Starting and Consolidator 2018 Grants.
 

Q: Do peer reviewers receive all parts of a proposal in the case of the ERC Consolidator Grant 2018 (ERC-2018-CoG) call?
A:

For the ERC Consolidator Grant 2018, Step 1 of the peer review evaluation process is based only on the extended synopsis, the Principal Investigator's CV and the track record (Part B1 only), and peer reviewers do not have access to the full scientific proposal. At Step 2, the peer reviewers base their assessment on the complete version of the retained proposals, including the full scientific proposal (Part B2).
For more information on the evaluation process, please refer to the ERC Work Programme 2018 (section 'Evaluation procedure and criteria').
 

Q: According to the conditions of the ERC Consolidator Grant 2018 (ERC-2018-CoG) call, is a Principal Investigator holding a Master Degree and no PhD entitled to apply to this call?
A:

No, according to the conditions of the ERC Consolidator Grant 2018 call, the Principal Investigator must have been awarded a PhD or equivalent doctoral degree to be eligible. First-professional degrees will not be considered in themselves as PhD-equivalent, even if recipients carry the title "Doctor".
For more information, please, consult the ERC policy on PhD and equivalent doctoral degrees in the ERC Work Programme 2018, Annex 2.
 

Q: According to the conditions of the ERC Consolidator Grant 2018 (ERC-2018-CoG) call, for medical doctors who hold both a medical doctor degree and a PhD, which degree will be taken into consideration for the calculation of the eligibility window?
A:

According to the conditions of the ERC Consolidator Grant 2018 call, for medical doctors who have been awarded both a medical doctor degree and a PhD, the date of the earliest degree that makes the applicant eligible takes precedence in the calculation of the eligibility time-window (7-12 years after the date of award of the PhD or 9-14 years past the medical doctor degree completion for Consolidators).
For more information, please, consult the ERC policy on PhD and equivalent doctoral degrees in the ERC Work Programme 2018 – Annex 2.