This article is directly based on the official ERC video “How can you write 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.
Writing an ERC proposal is a demanding process. Applicants need to present an ambitious research idea, explain why it matters, demonstrate that they are the right person to lead it, and show that the project can be delivered with a credible methodology and work plan.
The proposal must also speak to different audiences. At the 1st evaluation stage (Step 1), panel members assess Part B1 as broad scientific generalists. Later, in the 2nd evaluation stage (Step 2), the full proposal is reviewed in more depth by both panel members and external experts.
This means that a strong ERC proposal must be both exciting and precise. It must be accessible without being superficial, ambitious without being unrealistic, and detailed without losing focus.
.
Understand the structure of the ERC proposal
.
An ERC application includes several components, but the scientific proposal is mainly divided into:
- Part B1
This includes the extended synopsis, CV and track record. It is the only scientific document assessed at Step 1. - Part B2
This includes the detailed scientific proposal, methodology, work plan, risk assessment and implementation strategy. It is assessed only at Step 2. - Part A
This is the administrative section. It includes declarations, budget information, ethics and security aspects, and other required data.
Each part has a different role. Part B1 must convince the panel that the idea is worth taking forward. Part B2 must show that the project is technically sound, feasible and well designed.
.
Part B1: make the panel want to read more
.
Part B1 is often described as the applicant’s first impression. It needs to show, quickly and clearly, that the project has the potential to be groundbreaking.
At Step 1, panel members are not necessarily specialists in your exact topic. They are experienced scientists, but they may cover a broad area. This means your proposal must be written in a way that is clear, structured and engaging for a scientifically literate but non-specialist reader.
A strong Part B1 should answer 4 key questions:
.
1. Is the project potentially groundbreaking?
.
The ERC funds frontier research. Your proposal should not look like a routine continuation of previous work. You need to explain what is new, why it matters and how it could move the field forward.
Do not simply state that the project is novel. Show it. Explain the current limitations in the field, what remains unknown, and how your project could change understanding, methods or concepts.
.
2. Are the goals ambitious but realistic?
.
ERC projects should be bold, but they also need to be credible. Reviewers may be sceptical of proposals that promise too much without a convincing plan.
A strong proposal sets challenging objectives and explains why they can reasonably be pursued. It should also avoid presenting a disconnected list of tasks. The aims should build towards a coherent scientific vision.
.
3. Can a non-specialist understand the idea?
.
Part B1 should not be overloaded with jargon, acronyms or technical detail. You need to explain the project in a way that allows the whole panel to follow the logic.
This does not mean oversimplifying the science. It means making the structure clear, defining key concepts and guiding the reader through the importance of the idea.
.
4. Why now?
.
Reviewers need to understand why this project is timely. Has a new technology become available? Has the field reached a turning point? Has recent evidence opened a new possibility?
The “why now” argument can make the project feel urgent and relevant. Without it, even a good idea may seem less compelling.
.
CV and track record: tell the story of why you are the right PI
.
The CV and track record should not read like a list of achievements. They should help reviewers understand your scientific trajectory, independence, creativity and leadership.
You do not need to present yourself as the best researcher in the world. You need to show that you are the right person to carry out this project.
This means explaining:
- your most important achievements;
- your specific contribution to key outputs;
- your independence and intellectual ownership;
- your experience with the methods or concepts central to the proposal;
- your role in collaborations;
- your ability to lead the project and team.
For Starting and Consolidator Grant applicants, independence is especially important. Reviewers will want to see that the proposal is not simply an extension of a former supervisor’s research line.
For Advanced Grant applicants, recent achievements, leadership and mentoring may be particularly relevant.
.
Part B2: show how the project will work
.
Part B2 is where reviewers examine the project in detail. This section should explain the methodology, implementation plan, risks, contingency strategies, team structure and resources.
A common mistake is to focus heavily on Part B1 and leave Part B2 underdeveloped. This is risky. A strong Part B1 may get the proposal to Step 2, but Part B2 can determine whether reviewers remain convinced.
.
Explain your methodology clearly
.
Reviewers need to understand what you will do, why your methods are appropriate and how they relate to your objectives.
A strong methodology section should:
- justify the choice of methods;
- explain how the methods will answer the research questions;
- show awareness of limitations;
- describe your experience or access to expertise;
- connect methods clearly to aims and work packages.
Do not assume that reviewers will fill in missing details. If a method is essential, explain how it will be used and why it is suitable.
.
Include a credible risk assessment
.
ERC projects are ambitious, so risk is expected. What matters is whether the applicant has thought carefully about it.
Your proposal should identify the main scientific and technical risks and explain how you will manage them. Contingency plans show that you are prepared, not that your project is weak.
A useful risk section should be specific. Avoid generic statements such as “alternative methods will be used”. Instead, explain what could go wrong and what you would do in response.
.
Make the implementation plan easy to follow
.
A clear timeline can help reviewers understand how the project will unfold. Milestones and deliverables can also show how progress will be monitored.
The implementation plan should explain:
- the sequence of activities;
- how work packages relate to each other;
- key milestones;
- team roles and responsibilities;
- how the PI will monitor progress;
- how risks will be managed.
The goal is not to make the project look bureaucratic. The goal is to show that the ambitious scientific idea has a practical and coherent plan behind it.
.
Budget: request what the project genuinely needs
.
The budget will not normally be the reason a scientifically excellent proposal is rejected. However, reviewers will assess whether the requested resources are reasonable and justified.
Avoid inflating the budget simply because the maximum amount is available. Equally, do not under-budget a project that genuinely needs specific personnel, equipment or services.
The budget should match the scientific plan. If you request postdocs, technicians, equipment, travel or open access costs, explain why they are needed.
Applicants should also check the specific cost model for the relevant call, as requirements can vary.
.
Submission: do not leave the portal until the last minute
.
All ERC applications must be submitted through the European Commission’s Funding & Tenders Portal. Applicants should create their account, explore the submission system and upload draft materials well before the deadline.
Do not leave proofreading, formatting checks or administrative forms to the final day. Last-minute problems can compromise an otherwise strong application.
.
Practical checklist for ERC proposal writing
.
Before submitting, check whether your proposal answers these questions:
- Is the central idea clear?
- Is the project ambitious enough for the ERC?
- Is the novelty explained convincingly?
- Is the proposal understandable to non-specialists?
- Does the CV show why the PI is the right person?
- Is Part B2 detailed and credible?
- Are risks and contingency plans specific?
- Is the implementation plan clear?
- Does the budget match the project needs?
- Have trusted colleagues reviewed the proposal?
- Has the application been checked against the official ERC documents?
.
Common mistakes to avoid
.
Common weaknesses in ERC proposals include:
- presenting an incremental project;
- overloading Part B1 with technical detail;
- using too much jargon;
- failing to explain why the project is timely;
- listing achievements without explaining their significance;
- making the PI’s role unclear;
- underdeveloping Part B2;
- including vague risk mitigation;
- inflating the budget;
- submitting too close to the deadline.
.
FAQ: Writing an ERC proposal
.
- Should I write Part B1 or Part B2 first?
Under the old proposal format, many applicants started with Part B2 to clarify the full project design, then used it to summarise and sharpen the project in Part B1. From the 2026 Work Programme onwards, however, the format has changed substantially, and there is much less overlap between Parts B1 and B2. It may now make more sense to define the overall project, objectives and motivation in Part B1 first, and then develop the methodological details in Part B2. That said, applicants can use whichever strategy works best for them. What matters is that the two parts are coherent and aligned.
- Do I need preliminary data?
Not always. However, you need to provide a convincing basis for the project. This can include preliminary results, literature, conceptual reasoning or methodological readiness.
- Should I use many figures?
Figures can be helpful if they clarify the project. They should be readable, well designed and directly relevant. Avoid decorative figures that do not add substance.
- Is journal impact factor important for ERC evaluation?
No. The ERC does not use journal impact factor as a direct measure of the quality of your work. Reviewers assess achievements in context.
- Can my budget be reduced?
Yes, panels can recommend cuts if they consider some costs insufficiently justified. The best approach is to request what the project genuinely needs and explain it clearly.
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!