The “Standard Review” service resembles the official review process and provides a detailed report about the way the project is presented. It includes a single review cycle followed by a question and answer session.

The Standard Review service includes the following aspects for all grant schemes:

During the Standard Review process, our team will thoroughly review the application to verify that all essential elements and requirements of the funding scheme are properly addressed. As well, we will check that the proposal is formatted and presented “by the book”, and that it “feeds the reviewer” in the best way possible. The feedback that we provide serves as a pre-submission validation and can be used to improve the proposal’s readiness prior to actual submission. To maximize the effectiveness of this service, it is highly recommended to submit a near-final version of your application, so that the single review cycle and the Q&A session which follows will be as extensive and exhaustive as possible. 

 

Learn how this service applies to each unique grant:

ERC Standard Review service

The conceptual aspects we cover include, but are not limited to:

 

The technical aspects we cover include, but are not limited to:

  • Any relevant eligibility issues
  • Any errors that may lead to technical rejection
  • Abstract
  • CV evaluation
  • Track record evaluation
  • Overall formatting of all sections
    And more…

Interested in the Standard Review for your research project? Scroll to the bottom and contact us!

Explore the ERC world for more information!  

Horizon Europe Collaborative Projects

The conceptual aspects we cover include, but are not limited to:

  • Assessing the alignment of the proposal with the specific call and its requirements
  • Project’s objectives
  • Methodology
  • Results, expected outcomes, and expected impact(s)
  • Dissemination, Communication and exploitation activities
  • Workplan
  • The readiness of the project proposal to execution.
  • Management structure, milestones and procedures
    And more…

 

The technical aspects we cover include, but are not limited to:

  • Readability of the proposal
  • Any relevant eligibility issues
  • Any errors that may lead to technical rejection
  • Abstract
  • List of participants – Consortium members
  • Overall formatting requirements and Page limits
  • Budgeting
    And more…

*Once the Horizon Europe programme officially launches, we will make any final updates to the Standard Review process, to ensure it fully covers all technical and conceptual aspects of your proposal.

 

In addition, we also support the Clinical Trials variant of the Horizon Europe programme:

Clinical Trials Standard Review service

In this case, and in addition to the above, the Clinical Trials Standard Review report will give extra attention to the specific attributes of a Clinical Trial project.

Interested in the Standard Review for your research project? Scroll to the bottom and contact us!

Explore the Horizon Europe world for more information!  

MSCA Standard Review service

Our service applies to the following MSCA grant schemes:

  • MSCA Post-Doctoral Fellowship (PF)
  • MSCA Doctoral Networks (DN)

 

The conceptual aspects we cover are:

  • Quality, innovative aspects and credibility of the research project
  • Research methodology and approach
  • Quality and innovative aspects of the proposed training and knowledge transfer activities programme
  • Quality of planned supervision and integration of the team
  • Quality of the proposed interaction between the participating organisations (in the case of DN only)
  • The expected impact of the proposed project
  • Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, the allocation of tasks and resources
  • Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures
  • Appropriateness of the competences, experience, complementarity and infrastructure of the participating organisations (in the case of DN or COFUND)
  • Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results
    And more…

 

The technical aspects we cover are:

  • Any relevant eligibility issues
  • Any errors that may lead to technical rejection
  • Conforming to template structure and requirements (sections, sub-sections, sub-headings and tables)
  • Overall formatting requirements and Page limits
  • Open access, ethics and other outstanding issues
    And more…

Interested in the Standard Review for your research project? Scroll to the bottom and contact us!

Explore the MSCA world for more information!  

EIC Pathfinder Open Standard Review service

If you are considering to apply to the EIC Pathfinder funding scheme (under the Horizon Europe programme), our dedicated review will assess/ensure the proposal addresses the following distinct Pathfinder (FET-Open) features, in addition to the regular Horizon Europe features:

  1. Radical vision – expressing fundamentally uncharted lines of technology
  2. Breakthrough technological target – an identified science–to–technology breakthrough with respect to the state of the art
  3. High-risk / high-gain – the high-risk nature of the project is evident, as well as the potential high-gain (impact)
  4. Ambitious interdisciplinary research – a heterogenous consortium that extends past your discipline to elevate your ambitious research project

 

The outcome of our Standard Review is a detailed report which covers both technical and conceptual aspects of your proposal.

 

The conceptual aspects we cover include, but are not limited to:

  • Readability of the proposal
  • Coherence of the proposal inner logic
  • Project’s objectives
  • Approach
  • IPR aspects
  • Dissemination, Exploitation and Communication activities
  • Entering the market (if relevant)
  • Interdisciplinarity
  • Team
  • Work plan
  • Budgeting
  • Readiness of the project proposal to execution. Read more about the implementation structure.
  • Management structure, milestones and procedures
    And more…

 

The technical aspects we cover include, but are not limited to:

  • Any relevant eligibility issues
  • Any errors that may lead to technical rejection
  • Abstract
  • Participants – Consortium members (if relevant)
  • Overall formatting requirements and Page limits
  • Participants profiles
  • Participation of third parties
  • Ethics and security
    And more…

 

Interested in the Standard Review for your research project? Scroll to the bottom and contact us!

Explore the EIC world for more information!  

David Henry

“Concise, well-directed advise. Incredibly efficient review turn-around!”

“It was prompt and to the point. I had all my questions answered in enough detail.”

Zbynek Heger

“Preparation of my ERC together with Enspire was a joyful experience. Our communication was fast and efficient, and helped me to markedly improve my project application (and importantly – to polish my research ideas). You guys are doing a great job – highly recommended!”

“The feedback helped me understand what the funding application should focus on, what the important elements were, and the key aspects to highlight and bring out. I don’t think I would have had this realization without the review even though I had attended the training day – it was really helpful to hear the advice again in relation to my… Read more > “”

Ozcan Arslan

“The service was fast, comments are very valuable.”

“The external vision provided by Enspire has been very valuable to open my mind on important aspects, like the perception of what is a challenge (in the ERC mind), what is the perception of visibility, leadership… The review is very detailed and I encourage everyone to benefit from this help. This is very complimentary from referee reports or the reading… Read more > “”

“I started with the go/no go review as I prepared for the 2019 StG call. I was amazed at how substantial even this service was and it was helpful in designing the proposal. Ultimately I made it to Step 2 but was not funded, so for the next round, I decided to get a standard review. The Enspire consultants really… Read more > “”

Athanasios Chatzitakis

“The review pinpointed all the weak points in my proposal. After that, I had a clear view of how to proceed with it. Moreover, I got good advice on choosing the most appropriate review panel. Overall, a very satisfying experience.”

Manuel Rivero Rodríguez

“They have conducted a very thorough analysis with many recommendations that have better targeted the proposal. In fact, although the project was intended for an Advance solicitation, their suggestions point to a more appropriate solicitation such as Sinergy.”

If you are looking for ongoing assistance throughout the entire grant writing process, check out our Deep Dive service.

Read more  

Please refer to our Timeline & Deadline Policies to learn about the best time to start and our deadline for accepting new applications.

Read more  

Would you like to learn more about this service?

    Please contact us below:


    *It is understood and agreed that provided information must be kept confidential. Enspire Science does not disclose the confidential information obtained.

    back to all consulting services