Practical information for applicants

In ERC projects, the emphasis is placed on a breakthrough, ambitious and feasible idea in science, on the advancement of scientific knowledge, not on its "practicality" in the sense of impact on society as such. It may be mentioned in the project, but it is not a determining condition. Scientific quality is always evaluated. Not only the project proposal, but also the principal investigator.

The ERC welcomes projects combining approaches from multiple scientific disciplines or between multiple scientific fields. If the project has a significant overlap with another panel, a second panel may be indicated in the administrative forms A and B1. Such a decision must be justified on the opening page. The project should, however, be submitted to a panel where experts can best understand it and appreciate its originality.

ERC projects require a central hypothesis and an analytical, not a descriptive, approach. The project requires a clear structure, must be visually clear, which can be supported by appropriate and high-quality graphics, and must not be burdened by vague formulations.

The answers to the following questions must be clear from the abstract itself and, by extension, from the entire project proposal:

• What is the aim of the project? (The main research question to be addressed by the project)
• Why is it appropriate to support this project? (Why has the main question not been addressed so far, what is its impact on scientific knowledge, on fields, etc.)
• How will the project proceed? (Which methodology will be used, how original is it, is it at all appropriate to achieve the project's goal)
• Who will be involved in the project? (PI's expertise, ability to think independently and creatively, team leadership, etc.)

CV can be found in the second section B1. When writing the ERC CV, it is recommended that the CV template provided is used as much as possible. It is important to remember that the CV and track record are as important as the project itself. Therefore, it is also necessary to convince the evaluator that the PI is the top in his/her field.

In the third part of B1, the track record should be completed, which should contain a list of 5 to 10 selected publications on which the PI has worked. Evaluators appreciate it when a PI indicates his/her role in a given article or other publication and why he/she chose it for the TR. It is also considered appropriate to describe any other activity that enhance the scientific profile. The aim of the TR is to provide a complete picture of the PI.

Both the CV and track record should be written from the perspective of the evaluators. In no case should it be a mere list of publications, collaborations, or international stays. All the information given should be relevant to the project in a fundamental way. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate how the publication was ground-breaking, what contribution the applicant has made to it and what results have been achieved; it is not important how many such publications there have been, but their impact on knowledge and thus on the decision whether or not the project will be supported. Alternatively, it is possible to use graphs, pictures, etc. for clarity.

Especially for the Starting Grant (StG) and the Consolidator Grant (CoG), the PI must demonstrate the ability to conduct groundbreaking research independently of their supervisor. This means sufficiently defending their own scientific expertise and capacity to successfully solve the project. The ERC grant is not a continuation of previous research that was conducted by a PhD supervisor.

While for the StG the PI should have at least a minimum of experience in supervising teams, students, organising professional events etc., for the Advanced Grant (AdG) experience in supervising, training and professional development of young scientists is already expected. Mobility and experience in different workplaces, ideally abroad, is also expected.

Available statistics show that most applicants for the ERC StG submit a proposal 5-6 years after obtaining their PhD. However, the decision to apply for this grant or to postpone it if necessary,should always be an individual decision depending on the quality of the CV, track record and achieved results.

The aim of the oral interviews (always conducted in English) is to verify whether the person is really behind the presented idea, whether he/she is the originator of the idea and can present it in a comprehensible way to the panel members. The panel is made up of scientists, internationally recognised experts in their field. Therefore, it is necessary to work on a presentation that is focused on the scientific issue. The presentation must make it clear to everyone what the main idea is and where its uniqueness lies.

The panel usually has a broader scope than the external evaluators and so may not always understand every part of the project proposal in detail. This makes it all the more necessary to impress and convince them of the quality and feasibility of the planned research, even those panel members who understand the field but are not directly involved in your issue.

Each panel sets its own specific requirements with regard to the length of the interview, number of slides, the form, content or focus of the overall presentation. Therefore, always follow the instructions sent in advance. The length of the presentation must not be exceeded.

In terms of content, the presentation is mainly focused on the project itself, possibly also on the abilities and achieved results of the PI or his/her team. However, it is not a recapitulation of the CV. Please note that a presentation to an ERC panel is not a conference lecture.

The most frequently asked question is who are your main competitors, on a global scale, and vice versa, who you are collaborating with and why. It is therefore expected that you will be able to describe all of them and make the connections between your competitors and your research and prove what makes you, your team and your research unique.

It is recommended to look up the name of the panel chairperson, especially during the preparation phase for the interview before the expert panel.

It is possible to find the composition of panels from previous years on the ERC website, as they are renewed every two years. This allows to some extent to predict questions from panel members. It is also useful to look up their areas of expertise, main publications, etc. However, never contact panel members as this would be a conflict of interest and your projects could be excluded from the evaluation.

Choose a catchy title for your project, in which the breakthrough idea will be incorporated or should describe it. It should not be too long.

Consult your project with colleagues in your workplace, from abroad. Talk to them about the main idea, its strengths and weaknesses. Draw on the experience of the panellists. It is also advisable to present the project to people from other disciplines or lay people whose feedback helps to improve the clarity of the procedures and the guiding idea as well as the visual form of the presentation.

Designing an ERC project requires careful and long-term work. It is not possible to just modify the GAČR project. Do not describe what is predictable, generally known. The surprise moment is a necessary part of the project, raising questions such as "I didn't think of that! I didn't think about it that way!"

Part of the ERC grant planning should also be the provision of facilities, equipment, capacities at the institution where the potential ERC grant holder will implement the grant. In addition, it is important to consider administrative support, which should ideally be funded by direct costs or by the institute itself.

If the PI expects to publish a breakthrough publication, for example in a leading international peer-reviewed journal, which demonstrates his/her ability to come up with new ideas or leads to a major shift in knowledge, it is advisable to consider postponing the submission of the ERC grant. A possible postponement is also recommended when the future PI is to go on a long-term research stay at a top institute abroad, thus also strengthening his/her own profile against big competition.

Before the interview itself, it is necessary to be prepared for possible technical problems with the internet connection. It is therefore advisable to have a backup USB, several copies of the presentation and to arrive at the interview well in advance, etc.

One of the keys to success in an interview is to be precisely prepared, to appear confident, to be enthusiastic about science, to impress not only with the project but also with your own presentation and immediacy.

It is important to remember all the little things that affect the perception of your presentation: colours, fonts and slide graphics, type of presentation program (PowerPoint, Prezi, others), gesticulation in front of the screen, intonation, appropriate lighting of your face, etc.

The project often lacks an analysis of the state of global knowledge in relation to the field in order to highlight the project's own contribution.

Projects tend to be either too narrowly specialised or, on the contrary, too broad to lead to a significant shift in knowledge in the field.

The proposed methodology is not new, innovative or not adequate. Therefore, it cannot lead to the achievement of the project objectives. The lack of justification for the combination of methods used may also be considered as a weakness, or conversely, the methodology is too complicated or uses partial procedures without adequate justification.

The work plan or timetable lacks a definition of the expected results of the outputs or is non-specific and unclear.

The project is not supported by any preliminary research that would justify the submission of an ERC grant. It lacks a risk analysis and clearly defined objectives and a strategy in case of failure. A weakness is also considered if there are no risks in the ERC project.

Objectives, methodology are described vaguely. The project is inconsistent as it is not clear from the project description that the PI knows exactly what he/she wants to do and how to achieve the goals.

A recurring weakness also lies in the fact that the PI's independence from his supervisor has not been proven, which is particularly evident in the context of publications that were created mostly in collaboration with the Ph.D. supervisor.

A PI is considered incompetent if, apart from short doctoral internships, he/she has not completed a postdoctoral fellowship in a different environment than at his/her home institution, has not led his/her own team, or has not handled his/her own grants. If he/she did handle grants after all, he/she did not have a clear leadership role in the project. He/she has a poor scientific record in the field, with a low number of publications in leading international peer-reviewed journals.

The PI has a low profile, recognition and is little known in the international scientific community (low number of citations, invited talks, lack of scientific awards, etc.). The problem may also be that the PI is perceived only as a local expert in a very narrow, specialized field, has little international experience and collaboration, and lacks expertise in the field or topic (e.g., has no publications on the topic, or the topic is completely new to the PI).

The CoG often lacks the PI's experience in leading his/her own team, group. In the case of AdG, the fact that the person is not a leader in his/her field may also be considered a weakness. He/she has insufficient managerial skills (little or no experience in obtaining grants, teaching and supervising Ph.D. students).