Ask the expert: How to write a winning MSCA postdoctoral fellowship proposal

For many early career researchers worldwide, an MSCA fellowship is a dream ticket, allowing them lead their own research project for two or three years. However, competition is fierce. To be successful, MSCA proposals have to achieve a near-perfect score of around 95%.

Theresa Mikalsen leads the Arctic MSCA support programme at iC3’s host university in Tromsø, which has helped many dozens of researchers to win MSCA postdoctoral fellowships. The programme brings selected candidates to Tromsø to meet their supervisors, trains applicants in proposal writing, and critically reviews draft proposals before submission.

(Note: iC3 has a parallel MSCA support programme, so many of our candidates get support both from the university and from the iC3 team.)

.                                           

In this interview, Theresa shares tips and tricks on how to design a strong research project and write a winning MSCA proposal.

.  

How long have you been involved in supporting MSCA grant applications? 

We have been running the programme since 2016, so quite a few years now.

 .

How many proposals have you reviewed over the years?

Oh, quite a lot! At least 30 proposals every year, so that adds up to over 200, maybe even 300.

. 

What makes a great proposal for an MSCA-PF fellowship? 

It has to be intriguing, and the first page is crucial. The first page is essentially a sales document, so it must be clear and engaging. The key questions—why, how, and what—should be answered right away. Avoid making the evaluators bored or irritated with excessive or unclear wording. 

Also, don’t rely on AI-generated text; it’s still not good enough to match what a researcher can write, and it’s easy to spot.

. 

Beyond the first page, what is the general pattern of a successful application? 

Of course, scientific excellence is very important, as the application will be evaluated by scientists. However, the fellowship is also about career development.

The project should clearly advance the fellow’s career. A strong match with the supervisor is essential—there should be a two-way knowledge exchange. The candidate should bring something new to the supervisor and host institution, while also gaining valuable knowledge themselves. 

The impact section is also crucial, demonstrating how the fellowship will benefit both the candidate’s career and society, as well as how the research will be shared with the wider world.

 .

What are the most common reasons why strong scientific ideas in an MSCA proposal fail to get funding?

Sometimes the evaluators may not find the proposed research sufficiently compelling.

However, a very common issue is that applicants fail to clearly explain how the fellowship will advance their career. Another frequent problem is overambition—some projects are simply too ambitious for a two-year fellowship, making them unrealistic.

 .

What is the minimum academic track record required to have a realistic chance of securing MSCA funding?

That depends very much on the research field. This is why we leave it to the supervisor to assess the candidate’s track record [before the supervisor agrees to work with them]. In some fields, having at least a couple of publications is expected, while in others, the research process works differently.

What matters is that the candidate’s achievements stand out in comparison to their peers. Awards, prizes, or invitations to speak at conferences are all valuable indicators of excellence.

Additionally, even though the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) is a mobility scheme, it looks good on a CV if the candidate has already been mobile—meaning they have spent time in different institutions before applying. However, for younger candidates applying immediately after their PhD, this is not essential.

 .

In your experience, which part of the proposal is most often neglected and should receive more attention?

That’s easy—the implementation section. Many applicants underestimate it because it only accounts for 20% of the evaluation, compared to 50% for excellence and 30% for impact. However, you need top scores in all three sections to succeed.

Often, the implementation section is rushed at the end, not well thought through, and poorly presented. This can cost important points, which is frustrating, especially when the scientific idea is strong. Implementation should be carefully planned and given proper attention.

. 

Can applicants have a co-supervisor within the same institution, or should they only have one supervisor?

Absolutely, they can have a co-supervisor, but only if it benefits the project. The project should always come first.

If the main supervisor is relatively young and inexperienced, a more senior co-supervisor can be beneficial. This can even have a double advantage - helping not just the fellow’s career but also the career development of the young supervisor. 

Similarly, if the fellow has a secondment in industry, having a co-supervisor from that sector can be advantageous.

.

Should applicants always include a secondary host institution, or is it acceptable to have only a primary host? 

This depends entirely on the project. If the research naturally fits within a single host institution, then a secondary host isn’t necessary. Applicants shouldn’t add a second host just to make the proposal look more impressive - evaluators will see through that, and it could negatively impact the evaluation. 

The structure should follow the needs of the research.

 .

There is an option for a non-academic placement at the end of the MSCA fellowship, but few people seem to take it. When should applicants consider including this?

Again, it depends on the project. If a non-academic placement (typically in industry, but it's also possible with a nonprofit or government entity) fits naturally with the research, then it makes sense to include it.

However, I suspect that many candidates simply aren’t aware that this is an option, as it was only introduced relatively recently.

.

Would it be fair to say that your main advice is to always put the research project at the centre and ensure that everything else supports it?

Absolutely. That is 100% correct.

.

Eleven researchers at the iC3 Polar Research Hub are still available to supervise potential candidates for MSCA-PF (Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Postdoctoral Fellowships).

If you are passionate about polar science and want to join our friendly, interdisciplinary community of over 25 early career researchers in Tromsø, please check out available openings and get in touch with a potential supervisor.