Proposal Review & Evaluation
Detailed guidance on Marie Skłodowska-Curie proposal evaluation criteria, writing, review and revision.
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 →MSCA Excellence 1.1: Objectives, Ambition and Going Beyond the State of the Art
Excellence begins with research and innovation objectives that are pertinent, ambitious, measurable, verifiable and credibly beyond the state of the art.
Read article →MSCA Excellence 1.2: Methodology, Interdisciplinarity, Gender Dimension and Open Science
Methodology should show how the objectives will actually be achieved, including relevant interdisciplinary choices, sex/gender or diversity considerations where relevant, and appropriate open-science practices.
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.