What is a realistic amount of lead time that I should allow myself to prepare a proposal?

Eight months full proposals is not padding, it is in line with real cognitive requirements. Cosortium construction presupposes the creation of the real working relations, rather than gathering of the CVs. Next, there is iterative writing: writing, self-reviews, and alignment with the partner. Six months pre-proposals also require significant investment since such brief submissions need to be very clear. Late starts stranded partnership judgments and polluted the expression of your scientific story.

What are the reasons behind proposal elimination on admissibility grounds?

Since being straightforward does not imply being easy to implement under pressure. Missing required annexes are used in handling document versions between two or more partners when the deadline is at midnight. The requirement of the dissemination plan fails most; they put it in a shallow place, and all they are doing is including, not offering a serious strategy. An organizationally disorganized, technically readable proposal fails on the usability grounds.

So why focus on formatting when the content is what is important?

Thinking does not separate itself from visual display. Reviewers evaluate numerous offers when pressed in time- the working memory of a reviewer is limited. The blocks of text are thick, which leads to the cognitive load. There are also visual hierarchies in strategic white spaces, headings, and bullets that direct one to the vital points. It is cognitive ergonomics put into practice. Proposals that are well formatted save on the processing effort, thus enabling the reviewers to be involved in science, as opposed to getting lost in presentation.

To what extent is too much visual enough?

The border lies between the graphics that will no longer enlighten and the graphics that will start to distract. Each visual must have a load of information – explaining how relations work, depicting statistics, processes. In the event that you are unable to explain what particular insight a graphic gives that cannot be offered by text alone, eliminate it. The reason processes flows, hierarchical structures, funnel diagrams work is due to the fact that they condense the complicated information into scannable formats at a rapid rate. Three graphics that convey the same message indicate duplicity and not reinforcement.

What is meaningful highlighting?

Significant focus is made on truly important information, including specific goals, new techniques, measurable results, critical risks. It manages to be ineffective with over usage; when all things are bold nothing is different. Make it work on information you do not want to miss as that would affect the comprehension of the main logic in your proposal. Switch and change bold, underline, color, boxes in order to establish levels of emphasis instead of an even emphasis.

The reason to start writing with the impact section?

Impact is what determines the purpose to which excellence and implementation should be. To begin with methodology would be a mistake in establishing technically impressive ways of action that are not in line with the call matter of impact. This beginning with impact forces makes the clarity of ends before means that is, what change will your project bring, to whom, in what ways. This determines all other things: there are impacts that objectives should cause, there are ways that should be appropriate to these impacts; the consortium must have the means of execution.

What do I do to highlight the weaknesses without compromising on the competitiveness?

The difference is between risk admissions and lack of preparedness. Any ambitious project is associated with uncertainties, the reviewers anticipate this. The thing that they punish is ignorance or the lack of mitigation measures. Organize current threats: specification, estimation of likelihood and severity, specific mitigation plan, contingency plan. This portrays mature project management. Concealing blatant risks implies incompetence or lies both of which are deadly to the confidence of reviewers.

What is the meaning of interdisciplinary reviewer composition to the writing strategy?

It is not possible to presuppose specialized knowledge. Words that seem normal to you might seem opaque to the social scientists; the ordinary methodological approach might have to be described to the industry professionals. This does not imply simplifying to the point of losing expertise; it simply involves making expertise accessible without sacrificing accuracy. Explain technical terms on the first occurrence. Offer methodological background. Discuss importance of findings not make assumptions of being known. A physicist ought to have an idea of your biological innovations; a gender studies professional ought to comprehend your technical input.

What is compelling about an exploitation plan?

Preparation evidence in concrete. Identified partners in commercialization situations are part of the convincing exploitation, preliminary market analysis with data, IP protection strategy, regulatory awareness, temporary business models. Did you call prospective licensees? Analyzed competitors? Discussed regulatory specialists? The distinction is like science methodology- it provides evidence of claims of commercial potential instead of making claims of commercial potential.

What is the impact of evaluation criteria on reviewer assessment?

They offer frameworks of scoring. Each criterion is further divided into sub-elements, which the reviewers need to respond clearly and explicitly. In the case of Excellence, they evaluate the presence of clear objectives, sound methodology, and approaches that go beyond state-of-the-art. They are not able to use high scores without referring to certain demonstrating material. The information has to be easily found and each of the criteria has to be explicitly addressed in your proposal. Distributed methodology discourse compels reviewers to grapple with integrating coherent assessment.

So what is the difference between outcomes and impacts?

Direct project results are outcomes – publications, prototypes, datasets, trained researchers. They are the output of your project. These make possible more far-reaching, long-term impacts, which include: better practices, new policies, new areas, new competitiveness. Outcomes cause impacts but not necessarily. Weakness on common: recording publications as impact and not result. Reviewers evaluate the plausibility of the alleged consequences among claims of results based on expected outcomes and the plausibility of dissemination plans to make this connection.

Should the services of National Contact Point be utilized by experienced applicants?

NCP review is beneficial to even advanced consortia. NCPs are exposed to hundreds of proposals per year – they can identify trends in successful and unsuccessful submissions. They pick up those things that you have grown to be blind to because of overexposure. They define where their explanation can be easily misunderstood by people reviewing your work. They are aware of pitfalls that are common to types of calls. Consider it as peer review prior to submission as opposed to remedial assistance.

How crucial is the abstract?

Significantly important in its own right. The abstract predetermines the impressions of the first reviewers, as a study on cognitive bias indicates that such impressions have a strong impact on later assessment. Proposal shorthand is also referred to as abstracts in panel discussions. Strong abstracts pose a good start; weak abstracts pose a doubt that your proposal has to overcome. Use it like your elevator pitch- present the importance of the problem, innovative solution, anticipated results and possible impact in a non-specialist way.

When do I file it and drop the revision?

When the changes are more marginal touch-ups than major enhancements. There exists a curve of revision, where initial steps will result in a significant improvement but subsequent steps will only result in the marginal improvement and the chance of new mistakes. Establish a deadline 48 hours before the deadline- this gives a buffer for technical problems. Check on systematic checks on use final hours: have all sections addressed evaluation criteria? Is there accuracy in cross-references? Are there budgets of partner contributions? Is formatting consistent? Does it have any obligatory components? The foe of yielded is a perfect one.