In July, the European Research Council (ERC) hosted a webinar to present the key updates to the 2026 Work Programme and offer a preview of changes coming in 2027. Our team at TPM Science attended the session to ensure our community stays ahead of the evolving ERC landscape — from structural changes in proposals and evaluation to the introduction of a new “Super Grant” scheme. Below, we summarise the major updates and strategic insights shared by ERC leadership.

What are the most important changes and novelties in the 2026 Work Programme?

The ERC highlighted 5 major updates that will apply from the 2026 Work Programme onward:

1. Revised Proposal Structure

The scientific proposal remains divided into 2 parts, but is now more concise and functionally separated.

• Part I (in B1) is limited to 5 pages and focuses exclusively on the core scientific vision: the main research question, key objectives, and overall research strategy
• Part B2 covers implementation aspects, including the methodology and the justification for the requested resources

The CV and Track Record (in B1) section remains at 4 pages, including achievements and broader research outputs beyond publications (e.g., career breaks, alternative career paths).   There is also an annex (in B2) to describe the funding already secured and proposals submitted by the applicant(s) to know their track record and prevent, for example, double funding.

2. Evaluation Process Adjustments

The full assessment of the implementation of the project now occurs in Step 2of the evaluation.

• Step 1 focuses mainly on the research idea: its ambition, clarity, and potential to advance the frontier of knowledge. For Synergy Grants, it also assesses the complementarity of the Principal Investigators
• Step 2 assesses implementation, including methodology, resources

These changes are designed to reinforce ERC’s emphasis on bold and visionary ideas at the first evaluation stage.

3. Expanded Eligibility Extensions

To promote fairness and account for diverse career paths, the ERC introduced 2 eligibility extensions:

• Parental leave is now explicitly included (in addition to maternity and paternity leave)
• Victims of violence, including gender-based and other forms of discrimination-related violence, may request eligibility extensions, provided there is a documented interruption of research activity of at least 90 days

4. Simplified Additional Funding Scheme

ERC has merged multiple categories of additional support into a single “additional funding” package.

• Applicants may request up to €1 million for activities such as fieldwork, experimental work, and access to research infrastructure
• Additionally, up to €1 million may be requested by researchers relocating from outside Europe or associated countries to cover start-up and relocation costs

This simplification aims to improve clarity and flexibility in resource planning.

5. New Resubmission Restriction for Synergy Applicants

Applicants who received a B at Step 1 in the 2025 Synergy Grant call will not be eligible to apply again to any ERC call in 2026. The ERC acknowledged that this is a strict measure but indicated it is necessary to manage the volume of applications in an increasingly competitive scheme.

Planned Changes for 2027: Starting and Consolidator Grants

The ERC Scientific Council outlined forthcoming updates that are expected to take effect in 2027, pending formal adoption of the Work Programme. These changes aim to provide greater flexibility in research career trajectories. The eligibility windows for the Starting Grant (StG) and Consolidator Grant (CoG) will be expanded:

• Starting Grant: from the current 2–7 years after PhD to 0–10 years
• Consolidator Grant: from the current 7–12 years after PhD to 5–15 years

This adjustment will create a five-year overlap between the two schemes, enabling applicants to choose the grant that best aligns with their career stage and scientific maturity. The ERC emphasised that researchers progress at different paces depending on discipline and career path; these changes are therefore intended to accommodate diverse trajectories.  Extension rules (e.g., for parental leave or career breaks) will remain unchanged.  Updated resubmission rules will be published with the 2027 Work Programme.   In addition, from 2027 onwards, researchers will be able to receive only one Starting Grant and one Consolidator Grant over the course of their careers. However, there will be no limit on the number of Advanced Grants or Synergy Grants an investigator may obtain.

Introduction of ERC+ (“Super Grant”)

The ERC also confirmed the launch of a new high-value funding scheme, tentatively referred to as ERC+ (previously announced as the “Super Grant”). This scheme will be formally introduced through an amendment to the 2026 Work Programme, expected by the end of 2025. The ERC+ scheme will:

• Provide up to €7 million
• Fund research for up to 7 years
• Be open to all disciplines
• Be accessible across career stages, from early-career ERC grantees to senior researchers

Final details are still under development. However, the ERC indicated that the application timeline will likely mirror the Advanced Grant schedule, opening in late May and closing in early autumn, to ensure sufficient time for proposal preparation and panel recruitment.

Aspects discussed in the Q&A session

 

B1-B2 Structure & Content

 

• What is the recommended structure of part B1 and part B2 after the changes? How is it different?

The key change is that all content related to implementation must now be placed in Part B2.

• Part B1 focuses on the idea: the novelty, how it pushes the frontier of science, the research question, the state of knowledge, why the applicant’s work advances the field, and the main objectives.
• Part B2 focuses on implementation: how the idea will be executed, including methodology, work plan, and resources.

B1 and B2 are submitted together; this is not a two-stage application. Submitting both parts simultaneously helps ensure that B1 is not simply a summary of B2. The two parts should be complementary, without repetition, with B1 dedicated to the idea and B2 to how it will be implemented.

• What details should the overall research strategy include in the new Part B1?

This depends on the research field and the specific project.  The research strategy should explain why the applicant is pursuing this line of investigation and outline the intellectual path to the research question, without going into methodological detail. Work packages, milestones, and detailed execution plans are not required in B1. B1 should focus on the strategic reasoning for addressing the research question.

• For applicants transitioning from PostDoc to independence, how much overlap is allowed between the proposed project and previous PhD/PostDoc research?

An ERC application should represent a logical progression from prior research, but it must be groundbreaking and clearly distinct from completed work. Applicants must not request funding for research already carried out. The project may build on the same broader research theme, but it must introduce a new idea that advances the state of the art.

• How important is it for the proposal to be groundbreaking?

Groundbreaking ideas are essential and inherently involve considered risk-taking.  The removal of the explicit “high-risk, high-gain” label was intended to reduce unnecessary debate, not to reduce expectations. Frontier research involves uncertainty (applicants may need to adapt or change course) and ERC expects proposals to reflect this intellectual ambition.

• Should the preliminary work be summarised in B1 or B2?

• • If preliminary work motivates a new research question or objective not addressed before, it belongs in Part B1.
  • If the applicant is explaining the reuse or adaptation of methodologies from earlier work, that belongs in Part B2.

• Should Part B2 directly continue from Part B1 so that content (such as objectives) is not repeated?

Each case is different, but repetition should be avoided.  When describing methodology in B2, it is sufficient to state how a method or resource supports a given objective —without restating the conceptual justification already covered in B1. Part B1 should focus on the idea, while B2 should focus on the execution.

• Should preliminary results be included in Part B1?

Preliminary results may be included in Part B1 if they motivate a new research question or strategic direction. These results should be summarised briefly to show how they support the idea and inform the project’s objectives (not to describe implementation details).

• What does ERC mean with the statement that “In the new Programme, the focus is given more on the idea than the person”?

Until 2025, both the scientific proposal and the CV/track record were scored on the same scale (0–5), implicitly giving them similar weight. Panels often prioritised the proposal informally, but the Scientific Council has now explicitly prioritised the idea to reduce reputational bias. Key points:

• The proposal now receives scores and qualitative comments.
• The CV and track record receive qualitative comments only.
• The host institution is not evaluated, partly for fairness and partly because it may change after the Grant is awarded.

This ensures that even early-career applicants can be funded if they present a breakthrough idea.

• Since both parts are evaluated together, should references in B1 be repeated in B2?

No. Panel members and remote reviewers have access to both parts. References already included in B1 do not need to be repeated in B2.

The most important things for success

 

• What are the most important things to make a StG proposal successful?

ERC explained that a successful StG proposal should demonstrate:

• A novel, original idea
• Clear mastery of the state of the art
• A convincing explanation of how the applicant will advance it
• That the project is not a continuation or repetition of previous work
• Early signs of independence, such as publications or outputs without the PhD supervisor

Importantly, for Starting Grants, ERC does not expect full independence yet, but the applicant must show they are on the path toward it. ERC emphasised again that the host institution is not an evaluation criterion. It plays no role in panel assessment. Many StG grantees even change host institutions after being selected and before starting the grant.

• What are the most common mistakes in B1?

ERC noted recurring issues, including:

• Lack of clarity on the research question
• Proposals that appear incremental rather than breakthrough science
• Vague or repetitive text instead of concise, sharp arguments

The panel needs to clearly understand what the key question is, why it matters, and how it opens new ground. This is a highly competitive call; vague or repetitive proposals are disadvantaged against applications that are precise, exciting, and ambitious. B1 should get panel members excited to read more, showcasing the groundbreaking idea and why it pushes the frontier of knowledge. ERC also highlighted writing quality and readability:

• Ensure spelling and grammar are correct
• Format cleanly (avoid excessive bolding or underlining)
• Make the document pleasant to read, with a clear structure that lets the idea shine
  

 

Fundings

 

• Does the ERC fund fieldwork in non-European countries? Can some funding flow to non-European institutions involved in the project?

Yes to both. Fieldwork location depends on the research design, and partners outside Europe may participate as third-party beneficiaries if appropriate. ERC reminded applicants that if fieldwork is integral to the project, the time spent conducting it counts toward the 50% residency rule for Europe, regardless of the geographic location (e.g., Antarctica or Chile).

• Additional funding can cover start-up costs. What does “start-up cost” mean in practice?

Start-up funding supports establishing the ERC project, particularly when relocating from outside Europe (e.g., from the US, Japan, South Africa). Examples include:

• Required equipment not yet available at the host institution
• Specialist personnel needed to set up and operate the equipment

This funding is not for personal relocation expenses; all costs must be directly linked to the launch and implementation of the ERC project.

• When can additional funding be used for personnel costs?

This is broad and field-dependent. Eligible uses may include:

• Personnel supporting fieldwork (local staff, guides, technicians)
• Staff required to operate or build research equipment
• Costs associated with accessing major research facilities (e.g., satellite time, large-scale instruments)

Additional funding covers needs beyond the standard grant limit and must be requested only when essential for achieving the project’s objectives.

• Can a Starting Grant applicant in theoretical research include budget for an experiment led by an external experimental collaborator?

Yes. If the experiment is essential to the research project, it can be funded through the ERC grant. There is no restriction preventing theoreticians from including experimental work when scientifically justified.

 

Track record and CV

 

• How important is a track record in ERC funding?

ERC explained that the track record reflects what the applicant has achieved to date. Expectations naturally differ for Starting, Consolidator, and Advanced Grant applicants. Relevant research outputs may include:

• Articles
• Monographs (e.g., in SSH fields)
• Exhibitions, archaeological work, or other non-traditional research outputs

This is why ERC refers to “outputs” rather than only “publications.” The ERC does not evaluate applicants based on journal impact factors — this rule has always existed but is now explicitly emphasised. Applicants may highlight up to 10 key outputs and explain why they are significant. ERC also recognises contributions to the research community, such as:

• Developing major databases
• Building research infrastructure
• Other activities that support the broader scientific ecosystem

These contextual elements are not scored directly, but they help situate the applicant’s profile and scientific contributions.

• If an applicant has not received previous grants, is this a deal-breaker for a Starting Grant?

No. Lack of prior grants is not a deal-breaker. Applicants cannot have had an ERC grant before an StG by definition. Previous funding can be beneficial, but it is not required.

• What CV structure is preferred? A brief narrative plus list of achievements, or a fully narrative CV?

ERC stated that the format is a personal choice, but clarity is essential, just as in the scientific proposal. When selecting the 10 key outputs, applicants should briefly explain why they matter for the ERC project. The CV should also demonstrate why the applicant is capable of delivering the proposed project:

• If the project is a logical progression from prior work, this will be clear
• If the project enters a new field or direction, the applicant should explain their preparedness (e.g., collaborations, initial results, training)

The CV is assessed in relation to the proposed project, not only in comparison to the wider field.

• Is seniority taken into account, given that more senior researchers may have larger track records?

Yes. Applicants are evaluated within comparable eligibility windows (e.g., 2 years vs. 7 years after PhD for StG applicants). Panels take into account:

• Career breaks
• Unusual career paths
• Periods of lower productivity due to other commitments (e.g., medical practice, building community resources)

Applicants should explain how their career trajectory positions them to successfully carry out the proposed research. Importantly, ERC advised that waiting longer does not increase success probability. Success rates are flat across the eligibility window. The key factor is timing with respect to the idea’s maturity: applicants should apply when they have a strong and breakthrough idea, not simply later in the window.

 

Reviewers and Evaluation

 

• How are the external reviewers (remote reviewers) selected?

Remote reviewers are identified by the panel members, who are themselves appointed by the ERC Scientific Council. Panel members act as generalists within their panel’s scientific domain, and they cannot be specialists in every proposal submitted. Therefore, after the initial selection in Step 1, panel members invite specialist peers to review proposals that proceed to Step 2. To ensure at least three remote reviews per proposal, panels typically invite around 15 experts. In some cases, multiple rounds of invitations are needed to secure the minimum number of reviewers. Although remote reviewers do not attend panel meetings, their assessments are taken very seriously and often shape interview questions during Step 2.

• Is there a limit on the number of proposals that can reach Step 2?

Yes. Historically, the number was based on a budget multiplier (up to three times the available panel budget). However, this led to exceptionally large interview pools in some “super-panels,” particularly in Physical Sciences and Engineering, Social Sciences and Humanities, and Life Sciences. To ensure quality and manageable workloads, the ERC introduced a cap of 44 interviews per panel. This corresponds to approximately 11 interviews per day, accounting for briefing and calibration time at the start and feedback drafting at the end.

• Do success rates vary across panels?

No. Success rates are equal across all panels. Applicants should choose the panel that best aligns with the most exciting and central aspect of their research. The number of Step-2 interview slots is optimised to maintain a fair and consistent success rate across panels and ensure interviews are conducted under the best possible conditions for both applicants and evaluators.

• How are collaborations evaluated? Can they strengthen or weaken perceived independence?

Collaborations can be positive or negative, depending on how they relate to the applicant’s independence. Examples:

• If a former supervisor plays a major hidden role, this may indicate insufficient independence.
• If the applicant is entering a new area and requires complementary expertise, collaboration may strengthen feasibility.
• Collaborations spanning disciplines, methodologies, or geographic areas can be beneficial when clearly justified.

The crucial point is that these are individual investigator grants. The Principal Investigator (PI) must clearly lead the project. Collaborations should support, not replace, the applicant’s intellectual leadership. In fields where collaborative “primus inter pares” research cultures exist, this is acceptable, but applicants must explain why they are the one leading the idea and the project.

• Will specialist remote reviewers be involved in the evaluation of Part B1?

No. Remote reviewers are only involved for proposals that advance to Step 2. Panels conduct the initial generalist evaluation of B1. For proposals moving forward, specialist remote reviewers are brought in to provide expert input. Their reviews, while remote, are carefully considered and often help shape interview questions.

 

Restrictions

 

• If an applicant receives an A grade but the proposal is not funded, are there limits on future submissions?

No. An unfunded A-graded proposal may be resubmitted immediately or in a later call.

• What are the updated eligibility windows for StG and CoG under the planned restructuring?

These changes apply from 2027, pending formal confirmation in the 2027 Work Programme. Planned eligibility periods:

• Starting Grant (StG): 0–10 years post-PhD
• Consolidator Grant (CoG): 5–15 years post-PhD

Current windows (2025–2026 calls) remain:

• StG: 2–7 years post-PhD
• CoG: 7–12 years post-PhD

• Can a postdoctoral researcher without a permanent position apply for a StG?

Yes. Employment status does not affect eligibility. Many successful StG applicants do not hold permanent positions at the time of application. In such cases, part of the ERC budget may cover the PI’s salary. Often, awardees receive institutional appointments before starting the grant. (Under current rules, a minimum of two years must have passed since PhD defence for StG eligibility; seven years for CoG. These rules will change in 2027.)

• If an applicant has never secured grant funding and has no publications in the new field, is success impossible?

No. Prior funding and prior publications on the exact topic are not mandatory. Applicants must instead make a compelling case that they have the expertise, capacity, and vision to deliver the proposed research (especially when moving into a new area).

• If an applicant submits a StG in 2026 and receives a low B1 score, when can they apply again?

Resubmission rules:

• C at Step 1: must wait two years to reapply
• B at Step 1: must wait one year to reapply
• A (not invited to Step 2): may reapply the following year

Thus, a B or C in 2026 means the applicant cannot apply in 2027.

• Does the ERC support theoretical or desk-based research in SSH?

Yes. The ERC fully supports theoretical research across all fields — including Social Sciences and Humanities, mathematics, philosophy, and theoretical physics. ERC funding is entirely bottom-up, and theoretical work is treated on equal footing with experimental work.

• If an applicant applies for a CoG in 2026 and is unsuccessful, can they then apply for a StG if the eligibility windows change?

Yes, provided they fall within the new eligibility windows and comply with the other resubmission rules. Final conditions will be confirmed in the 2027 Work Programme.

• Is collaboration with a former PhD supervisor compatible with CoG eligibility, and does it demonstrate independence?

Yes. Lifelong scientific collaborations are common. However, to demonstrate independence, the applicant must clearly show that:

• The idea originates from them, and
• They will lead and steer the project.

A track record with last-author publications supports independence. If the work appears as a continuation of the supervisor’s research under a different name, this is typically recognised and may raise concerns.

• What is the current eligibility window for CoG applicants?

For current calls, eligibility is 7–12 years post-PhD (extensions possible under ERC rules).

• If a PhD was defended in October 2024, is the applicant eligible this year?

Applicants must follow the exact eligibility dates stated in the Work Programme. For 2027 eligibility, the applicant must wait for that year’s call to confirm the precise cut-off dates.

• Can senior researchers from other universities be named and funded in an ERC grant?

Yes. Senior collaborators can be included and funded when their expertise supports the project objectives. For StG applicants, the proposal must clearly show that senior collaborators play a supporting role and that the PI retains full intellectual and leadership responsibility.

 

Types of Grants

 

• Will the ERC+ “Super Grant” be a standalone call open to researchers at all stages?

Yes, the ERC+ will be open to researchers across all seniority levels.

• Will current ERC applicants be restricted to the ERC+ application?

Eligibility rules are still being finalised by the Scientific Council. More details will be released once confirmed.

• What track record is expected for CoG applicants? How does this differ from StG profiles?

CoG eligibility typically applies 7–12 years after PhD (with extensions where applicable). The distinction between StG and CoG applicants reflects both time since PhD and career stage:

• Starting Grant: Applicants are not expected to already have a full independent lab or team. They should show early steps toward independence and leadership potential.
• Consolidator Grant: Applicants should already exhibit research independence, for example, leading a team, having established key publications, and consolidating their research trajectory.

In short, StG supports emerging independence, while CoG supports researchers already building and strengthening their independent research track.

• Are there any changes for Proof-of-Concept (PoC) grants in the 2026 Work Programme, aside from budget updates?

The PoC scheme remains unchanged. Calls will open in November with two deadlines (March and September). PoC grants support ERC PIs who aim to explore the market or innovation potential of results from their ERC projects.

• Where can applicants find dedicated support and guidance on ERC calls?

ERC National Contact Points (NCPs) operate in EU Member States, Associated Countries, and many other countries worldwide. They provide guidance and regularly organise information sessions.

 

Other Information

 

• How are proposals using LLMs/AI treated under ERC policies?

The ERC allows the use of AI tools, but applicants are fully responsible for their content. This includes avoiding fabricated references (“hallucinations”) and ensuring originality. Sharing confidential proposal text with third-party AI systems hosted outside Europe may breach confidentiality rules. Policies are evolving, and the ERC continues to monitor this area.

• Are there templates for ERC proposals?

Yes. Templates are available in the application system (Word format by default; LaTeX is commonly used in physics communities). Applicants are advised to draft directly in the submission system and avoid last-minute formatting.

• How should references be handled?

References should be relevant and evidence-based, not excessively long. Self-citation should remain reasonable and justified.

• Is there a minimum h-index recommended to submit for CoG?

No. There is no minimum h-index requirement.

• Does the ERC discourage the use of journal metrics like impact factor in CVs?

Yes. ERC policies explicitly discourage reliance on journal metrics (e.g., impact factor) when describing achievements.

• Is there a limit on the number of team members?

No. Team size depends on the project’s needs and must be justified by the applicant. Hiring practices differ significantly across fields.

• Recently, there have been many reports in the US about new programs for those who wish to move to Europe. Are these reports accurate? 

Yes. The ERC is highly open internationally: researchers of any nationality can apply. Recent measures (including an extra €1M startup allowance and the new ERC+ scheme) aim to attract and retain global talent in Europe.

• Does international collaboration strengthen ERC proposals?

It depends on the field.  In some areas (e.g., astrophysics), international collaboration is integral. In others (e.g., theoretical fields), it may be less central. What matters is that collaboration is justified and supports the project (not included solely to impress evaluators).

Discover many other calls we work with and can help you succeed in our Grants section, or contact us and tell me how we can advise you.