Proposal Review & Evaluation
Detailed guidance on Marie Skłodowska-Curie proposal evaluation criteria, writing, review and revision.
MSCA Implementation 3.1: Work Packages, Deliverables, Milestones, Risks and Effort
Implementation should demonstrate that the project can be delivered in the available time with a coherent work plan, credible risks and appropriate allocation of effort.
Read article →MSCA Implementation 3.2: Host Capacity and Hosting Arrangements
Host capacity is strongest when facilities, people, integration and support are clearly connected to the work the researcher must perform.
Read article →How to Use the 10-Page MSCA Part B-1 Limit Strategically
In the 2026 template, Sections 1–3 of Part B-1 share a maximum of 10 pages, including the Gantt chart. Page economy therefore becomes part of proposal strategy.
Read article →MSCA Proposal Self-Review Matrix: Criterion, Claim, Evidence and Action
A review matrix makes proposal weaknesses visible before line editing begins.
Read article →Writing Measurable and Verifiable Research Objectives for MSCA
Objectives should function as the backbone of the research project and the review process.
Read article →Writing the State of the Art Without Losing the Evaluator
The state of the art should establish the exact frontier the project moves beyond, not become a literature-review chapter.
Read article →MSCA Gantt Chart and Work Package Design
The Gantt chart is part of the evaluated implementation story and counts within the Part B-1 page limit.
Read article →Evidence-Based Proposal Writing: How to Support Ambitious Claims
Ambition is persuasive when it is supported by prior results, host capacity, literature, preliminary evidence or a clearly designed validation plan.
Read article →MSCA Proposal Review Criteria 2026: How Evaluators Read the Application
The 2026 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Postdoctoral Fellowships template organises Part B-1 around Excellence, Impact, and Quality and Efficiency of Implementation. A useful review checks every sub-criterion, not only the overall story.
Read article →How to Review an MSCA Proposal After Evaluator Feedback
Evaluation feedback should be translated into structural revision tasks rather than answered sentence by sentence.
Read article →Questions researchers often ask
What should be reviewed first in an MSCA proposal?
Start with the evaluation logic: scientific objectives, methodology, researcher-host complementarity, training, impact and implementation. Language polishing should come after the structural argument is coherent and evidence-based.
How can proposal review improve evaluation readiness?
A useful review checks whether every important claim is supported, whether the sections are internally consistent, and whether the evaluator can quickly identify excellence, impact and implementation quality.
Can a proposal be reused after an unsuccessful call?
Yes. The research concept, methodology, work packages and impact logic can support resubmission, alternative grants, publications, industry collaboration or a longer research programme.