This article is directly based on the official ERC video “How do we evaluate your ERC proposal?”, published as part of the European Research Council’s applicant guidance series. We have turned the main messages into a practical, easy-to-read guide, with additional tips to help researchers prepare their ERC application more strategically.
The full official video series is available here.
Many applicants focus on writing the proposal but spend less time thinking about how it will be evaluated. Yet understanding the evaluation process can make a real difference.
Who reads the proposal first? What do they see at each stage? How are reviewers selected? What happens during the panel meeting? Why is Part B1 so important? What role does the interview play?
The ERC evaluation process is designed to assess scientific excellence through peer review. It is rigorous, structured and competitive. For applicants, knowing how it works can help make the proposal clearer, better targeted and easier to assess.
.
Excellence is the central evaluation criterion
.
The ERC evaluates proposals on the basis of scientific excellence. This applies both to the project and to the Principal Investigator.
In practice, reviewers consider whether the project is ambitious, novel, potentially groundbreaking and feasible. They also assess whether the applicant has the expertise, creativity and capacity to lead the proposed research.
The evaluation is not only about having a good idea. It is about convincing reviewers that the idea is important, timely, well designed and led by the right person.
.
How ERC panels are formed
.
ERC panels are composed of experienced researchers selected to cover the descriptors included in the ERC Work Programme. The ERC also considers balance in terms of gender and geography.
Panel members serve in alternating years and may serve several times. The names of panel chairs are published before the call deadline, while the full panel composition is released later for transparency.
Applicants should never contact panel members about their proposal. Doing so can raise serious integrity concerns and may have significant consequences.
.
How proposals are allocated to reviewers
.
After submission, the ERC checks for conflicts of interest. Applicants can also indicate up to three experts who they believe should not review their proposal.
The panel chair then assigns proposals to panel members whose expertise best matches the application. This allocation is based on information such as the abstract, descriptors and keywords.
This is why the abstract, descriptors and keywords matter. They help determine who reviews the proposal.
Applicants should therefore ensure that these elements accurately reflect the project and its scientific scope.
.
Choosing the right panel matters
.
Applicants sometimes wonder whether some ERC panels are easier than others. The ERC guidance is clear: the budget is distributed across panels according to the funding requested by proposals assigned to each panel, helping to keep success rates broadly balanced.
The best strategy is therefore not to guess which panel may be more favourable. The best strategy is to choose the panel that best fits the science.
If a proposal clearly belongs in another panel, a transfer may be requested, but this requires agreement between panel chairs and is not something applicants should rely on.
.
Step 1: why Part B1 is crucial
.
At Step 1, panel members assess only Part B1. This includes the synopsis, CV and track record.
They do not assess the full Part B2 at this stage. This makes Part B1 absolutely critical. It must communicate the central idea, novelty, ambition and PI suitability clearly enough for the proposal to move forward.
At this stage, panel members act as generalists. They may be experts in the broader panel area, but not specialists in the exact topic.
- This has important writing implications:
- avoid unnecessary jargon;
- define key concepts;
- make the structure easy to follow;
- explain why the project matters;
- keep the reader engaged;
- show clearly why the PI is the right person.
A proposal that is technically impressive but hard to understand may struggle at step one.
.
What happens during the Step 1 panel meeting?
.
After remote reviews are submitted, panel members meet to discuss proposals. A lead reviewer usually presents the proposal, other reviewers contribute their views, and the panel agrees on a preliminary assessment and ranking.
The strongest proposals receive an A score and may be invited to Step 2. Proposals with some weaknesses may receive a B, while proposals with more significant issues may receive a C.
For individual ERC grants, only a limited number of proposals can proceed to Step 2 interviews. This means that even strong proposals may face intense competition.
.
Step 2: the full proposal is assessed
.
At Step 2, reviewers assess the full application, including Part B1, Part B2, CV, track record and budget.
The focus remains on excellence, but the emphasis shifts. Reviewers look more closely at methodology, feasibility, implementation, risk, team structure and resources.
External remote reviewers may also be invited to assess the proposal. They provide specialist input on the scientific content.
This is why Part B2 must be carefully developed. A brilliant synopsis is not enough if the detailed methodology or implementation plan is weak.
.
The ERC interview
.
For applicants invited to Step 2, the interview is a key moment. The panel uses it to clarify questions, test the applicant’s understanding of the project and assess whether the PI can defend the proposal.
The interview format can vary by panel, but applicants usually receive instructions in advance. These may include the presentation length, whether slides are allowed and how the Q&A will be structured.
The interview is not simply a presentation exercise. It is a scientific discussion. Applicants should be ready to answer questions about the project’s novelty, feasibility, risks, methods, collaborations, budget and broader significance.
.
Scores, ranking and funding decisions
.
After the Step 2 interviews, the panel discusses and ranks the proposals. At this stage, proposals receive either an A or B score.
- An A means the proposal is of sufficient quality to be funded if budget is available. Some A-scored proposals may be funded immediately, some may be placed on a reserve list, and others may remain unfunded if the budget is exhausted.
- A B score means the proposal has weaknesses that prevent it from being recommended for funding.
Applicants who reach step two but are not funded can normally reapply the following year to the call for which they are eligible.
.
Feedback and redress
.
Applicants receive feedback after each relevant stage. This includes anonymised reviews and a panel comment explaining the decision.
This feedback can be valuable, especially for applicants planning to resubmit. It should be read carefully and objectively.
Applicants may request redress if they believe there was a procedural error in the evaluation. However, redress is not a way to challenge the scientific judgement of reviewers.
.
Practical lessons for applicants
.
Understanding the evaluation process leads to several practical lessons:
- Part B1 must be accessible and compelling. It is the only scientific document assessed at step one.
- The abstract, descriptors and keywords should be carefully chosen because they help allocate reviewers.
- Part B2 must be strong enough to withstand expert scrutiny at step two.
- The interview should be prepared as a scientific discussion, not only as a presentation.
- Feedback should be treated as a strategic resource, especially for resubmission.
.
Common mistakes to avoid
.
Applicants should avoid:
- choosing a panel based on perceived success rates;
- using vague descriptors or keywords;
- assuming all panel members are specialists;
- burying the main idea in technical detail;
- neglecting Part B2 because it is not assessed at step one;
- underestimating the interview;
- contacting panel members;
- ignoring feedback after an unsuccessful application.
.
FAQ: ERC evaluation
.
- What is evaluated at Step 1?
For individual ERC grants, step one focuses on Part B1, which includes the synopsis, CV and track record.
- Do reviewers see Part B2 at Step 1?
No. Part B2 is assessed at Step 2, together with the full application.
- Are some ERC panels easier than others?
Applicants should not choose panels strategically based on perceived success rates. The ERC aims to balance success rates across panels through budget allocation.
- Can I exclude specific reviewers?
Applicants can indicate up to 3 experts they believe should not review their proposal, usually due to conflict or other justified concerns.
- Can I contact panel members?
No. Applicants should not contact panel members about their proposal. This may be considered a breach of integrity.
Need help reshaping your proposal? Or tips on nailing Part I’s narrative punch? Reach out. We are happy to help! Explore our dedicated pages for each ERC call:
Curious how we work? Check out our workflow for ERC consulting. Or get in touch directly!