PF guidance notes

Part A includes 'help' icons in the online form: these explain what is required in each section.  Please see also our Participating in Horizon Europe page for guidance on registering your proposal including which PIC to use.

Add the Research Services Manager/Joint Research Office Head of Grants for your Faculty as a ‘Contact’. This will enable him/her to access the proposal details and edit content for Imperial and for the proposal as a whole:

• Faculty of Engineering: Mr Shaun Power s.p.power@imperial.ac.uk
• Faculty of Medicine: Ms Harriet Hallas h.hallas@imperial.ac.uk 
• Faculty of Natural Sciences: Ms Brooke Alasya b.alasya@imperial.ac.uk
• The Business School: Dr David Wilson david.wilson@imperial.ac.uk

You can add other people (e.g. Department Administrator) as requested.  You do not need to add the EU Team as contacts.

Please note that you do not need to answer the following sections of Part A, per UKRO's summary of the Commission clarification:

• List of up to five publications
• List of relevant previous projects
• List of significant infrastructure.

1.1: Quality and pertinence of the project’s research and innovation objectives (and the extent to which they are ambitious, and go beyond the state of the art)

Give a short general introduction then explain immediately what you are planning to do, what your aims are, and what the benefits of the project will be.  Remember this is about training as well as research, so include the benefits for you as researcher.

Show your knowledge of the field with a concise description on the state of the art, then explain how your project goes beyond it.  Be selective when referencing papers as space is extremely limited.

Show that what you’re proposing is possible within the time you have.  Give evidence to support this – e.g. have you used similar approaches/techniques?

1.2: Soundness of the proposed methodology (including interdisciplinary approaches, consideration of the gender dimension and other diversity aspects if relevant for the research project, and the quality of open science practices)

Describe your method in enough detail that another researcher would understand how you intend to conduct the work, including why you’ve chose these approaches compared to any alternatives.  How will you identify and avoid any obstacles?

Are there multidisciplinary aspects to the work?  How will you manage these – do you need technical training to realise them?  How will you get the training you need, and from whom? Can you achieve this with one or more secondment, or a non-academic placement at the end of the project?

Does your work have any gender implications?  Note that this relates to the work itself, not the gender of those involved in the project.  The Gendered Innovations website might be useful when considering this.  If there is no gender aspect, say so and explain why.

Remember that Open Access principles are expected to be a part of your project.  How will you ensure that your work is available to your peers or other groups who may want to make use of it?

Are you planning to use AI in any part of the project?  Make certain that the evaluators know you’ve taken steps to avoid any unintended harm that might result.  Note that this question is newly added, so evaluators will be scrutinising it closely.

1.3: Quality of the supervision, training and of the two-way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host

You will need substantial input from your supervisor here, at least – ideally, he or she should draft this section.  Show evidence that your supervisor is the right person for you to work with and give any examples of this experience both in the field and in terms of supervising similar projects, regardless of funder.  If you’re doing a secondment or non-academic placement, show how there will be continuity of supervision during those periods.

Be concrete and specific when explaining the planned training activities: show what you will learn, how, and why – what will be the benefit to your future career?  The Eurodoc report should be helpful when drafting this section.  Conversely, what skills do you have that will benefit the research group, and how will you ensure that you’re able to pass them on?

1.4: Quality and appropriateness of the researcher’s professional experience, competences and skills

Reference your CV heavily: choose specific examples from your earlier career which you feel show the link between what you have done before and the work you have described in B1.1.  What about you makes you stand out, and gives you the potential to be a future research leader?

2.1: Credibility of the measures to enhance the career perspectives and employability of the researcher and contribution to his/her skills development

Specify what knowledge you will gain during the fellowship, how you will acquire it and how it will benefit your career in future.  What will you be able to after the fellowship that you wouldn’t have been able to before?  What advances in your career stage will you be able to make (e.g. setting up your own research group)?  How will you leverage your supervisor’s contacts to expand your own professional network?

If you’re doing one or more secondments or a Placement, how will these contribute to your career advancement? If your secondment is in another sector (i.e. with a non-academic organisation), explain what you’ll gain from exposure to that sector.

2.2: Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities

For the EC's definitions of dissemination, exploitation and communication in EC terms, refer to the Horizon Europe Programme Guide. Be specific: how many articles do you expect to publish?  Which journals will you aim to publish in?  Which conferences do you want to present your work at?  There may be other means of promoting your work to relevant audiences: perhaps to patient groups or in trade journals, depending on your field.  Are there other grants you could apply for to further develop the results you get from this project?  In terms of reaching a wider audience, check the Imperial Information document above: we have an Outreach Team which arranges presentations to schools, and the Great Exhibition Road Festival which is a good opportunity for public outreach.

Your work may produce results that you want to patent or otherwise protect; Imperial’s Enterprise division can assist with this.  If you are doing secondments or a Placement, could you involve your non-academic host in further commercialisation?

2.3: The magnitude and importance of the project’s contribution to the expected scientific, societal and economic impacts

This section is well described in the Commission documents: follow these instructions closely and you will be on the right track.  Make sure you understand what the Commission means by ‘outcome’ and ‘impact’ by reading the documentation before you start.  Clearly explain how the results will feed into the wider scientific literature and even ultimately impact on society.  How will other researchers be able to build upon your work? This would link to your dissemination and exploitation strategy in section B2.2.

 3.1: Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages

Link this to the objectives you stated in B1.1: establish measurable Milestones and verifiable Deliverables and describe them clearly enough that your progress through the project could be assessed against them.  Explain why you’ve allocated time to each Work Package and Task so the evaluators can assess how feasible your plans are.  Why is your approach better than any alternatives?  Do you already have the skills to do what you’ve planned, or will you need training – if so how does this factor into your timeline?  Include any secondments or a Placement here if you're doing them.

As this is a single-researcher project, your management structure should be simple: the primary responsibility should rest with you and your supervisor but some projects may benefit from external advice, for example if there’s a significant commercial aspect to your project.  How often will you check in with your supervisor on progress and how often will you have a more formal periodic review?

When assessing the risks to the project, be exhaustive: we suggest going through each Work Package using a bulleted list to explain the risk(s), likelihood of these happening, the impact on the project, and what you will do to mitigate them (including any mitigations in the way you’ve designed the project).  What you don’t want here is for the evaluators to pick up on potential weaknesses you have not mentioned, so ensure you’re realistic - every project has some risk, regardless of how unlikely this is to occur.  You may want to get your supervisor and/or peers to read through for a different perspective: someone else may spot a potential problem you haven’t anticipated. 

3.2: Quality and capacity of the host institutions and participating organisations, including hosting arrangements

This is another section in which you’ll need significant input from your supervisor as he or she will be the best person to describe the immediate hosting environment of the fellowship as well as the quality of the research group you’ll be based in.  You can also refer to the Imperial Information document above for further evidence of the quality of Imperial in general, as well as a description of the services available to help manage the fellowship.

Detail how you will use any infrastructure in the department (and your secondment/Placement host, if relevant): it’s not sufficient to state that this exists, you need to relate it to the project you have described.