The example is good, yet even more details would be great. Be smart and write even shorter sentences than in the given example. For example, instead of mentioning departments better add references to articles or webpages.
I agree on more details and sentence structure. As to references to articles in this part of the applications -- I'm not sure about it. They belong in part 1 "Excellence." Also, do not add references to webpages -- evaluators are instructed not to access any external links on the application -- it's not useful.
@@PostdocLife Sure, reviewers do not have to access webpages. Similarly there is no obligation to check articles. Any reference is just proof that your statement has a base. In that case it is better to add a weblink, for example, for an existing course than writing its code.
Writing that you plan to publish in Nature is a bad idea as it does to match with the MSCA scope. On the opposite, it sounds like a risky promise, which might downgrade the evaluation.
There is a rule that they don't evaluate journals based on Impact Factor, goes both ways (high or low as long as it is a reputable journal). Nature is just a stand-in for a "reputable journal in your area." But in general, I don't think that they will downgrade you for ambition. MSCA PFs should be ambitious. My two cents.
@@PostdocLife I was downgraded exactly for being too ambitious. First, promising to publish too many papers. Second, for aiming at high impact journals. Even without MSCA I managed to publish all desired papers in Q1 journals, but with limited resources (thus limited methods, mobility, etc) reached high impact journals much later. Anyway, Nature is not the kind of ambition that is expected from an applicant.
Thank you so much!
Glad it helped!
Thank you
You're welcome
Thanks for your valuable tips and time 🤝
My pleasure
Thank you. Do you have download guidelines
on some other videos not on this one
The example is good, yet even more details would be great. Be smart and write even shorter sentences than in the given example. For example, instead of mentioning departments better add references to articles or webpages.
I agree on more details and sentence structure. As to references to articles in this part of the applications -- I'm not sure about it. They belong in part 1 "Excellence." Also, do not add references to webpages -- evaluators are instructed not to access any external links on the application -- it's not useful.
@@PostdocLife Sure, reviewers do not have to access webpages. Similarly there is no obligation to check articles. Any reference is just proof that your statement has a base. In that case it is better to add a weblink, for example, for an existing course than writing its code.
Writing that you plan to publish in Nature is a bad idea as it does to match with the MSCA scope. On the opposite, it sounds like a risky promise, which might downgrade the evaluation.
There is a rule that they don't evaluate journals based on Impact Factor, goes both ways (high or low as long as it is a reputable journal). Nature is just a stand-in for a "reputable journal in your area." But in general, I don't think that they will downgrade you for ambition. MSCA PFs should be ambitious. My two cents.
@@PostdocLife I was downgraded exactly for being too ambitious. First, promising to publish too many papers. Second, for aiming at high impact journals. Even without MSCA I managed to publish all desired papers in Q1 journals, but with limited resources (thus limited methods, mobility, etc) reached high impact journals much later. Anyway, Nature is not the kind of ambition that is expected from an applicant.