The top 3 things to check before you submit your Horizon Europe Cluster 1 proposal

I still remember my first day as a grant writer.I spent the whole day in the nearby print shop to print the application documents to be submitted for an incoming deadline.

At that time - we are talking about the 5th Framework Programme - the delivery of the grant documentation was carried out via mail. You can imagine the agitation that reigned over the last few days between the printer and the courier services to book. And you can imagine how the excitement increased when the office printer didn’t work or the cartridge ended, or when you arrived too late to deliver the package to the courier’s office.

My first day of work went like that. A memorable beginning!
About 20 years have passed, and a lot has changed since then.

Fortunately, now the submission of proposals is done through a digital portal and the European Commission has implemented a simplification process (even though this is opening the door to new challenges and the need for new skills and capabilities, such as the use of the Funding and Tenders Opportunity Portal).

Although the process has been simplified, the delivery of the grant application documents remains a critical time for researchers, as the pressure of the deadline can cause them to lose clarity and concentration.

To help researchers keep their nerves up, I share in this post my list of the three checks that should never be missed before submitting a grant under Cluster 1 of the Horizon Europe programme.

This blog post will equip you with a killer revision strategy, revealing insider tips.

Say goodbye to overlooked errors and say welcome to a streamlined workflow that will skyrocket your grant proposal to success. 

1. Completeness

First of all, you need to ask yourself if you have it all the information and elements you need for the submission.

I know it may sound trivial, but it happens more often than you think that at the last minute the Coordinator, busy with the WPs writing, forgets other fundamental aspects of the proposal.

What to check here?

First of all, if there are all the parts of the project.

Apart from Part B, are the online administrative forms complete? Have all partners provided or entered their data? Not just the PIC number, but also their expertise, their researchers’data and all that is requested from beneficiaries.

Have you included the abstract and the keywords associated to the project? Have you included the final proposal title? Have you completed the project duration? Have you filled out all the declaration fields?

Have you included the budget data?

And last but not least: have you completed the ethical part and prepared and attached the template with the information on clinical studies, if your project envisages them?

So far everything is OK?

Even though you think that everything is fine, do another check, by clicking on the button that is specifically conceived for this scope in the portal. If you miss something that is mandatory and that can block the submission, the system will tell you. Better profiting of this opportunity, don’t you think?

After having solved the first check, now focus on another aspect related to completeness.

Read the application form guidelines for each paragraph and make sure you have answered all the questions and specific requests.

This issue may appear obvious, but it is important to mention because, similar to the earlier case, incomplete responses to application guidelines are more common than anticipated.

How does this occur?

You might have noticed that the guidelines are not explicitly asking questions, but they simply state the specific information they require. And that some points of the guidelines are more like a combination of five questions, and at times, the questions themselves seem repetitive. This is therefore plausible to overlook or misunderstand a portion of a question.

For this reason, one might assume it is acceptable to skip certain parts of a question if they have already addressed it earlier in the proposal. However, this is not the case, as in the different sections of the applications, reviewers are looking for a different information or a different angle of the question.

You might therefore want to read the guidelines very carefully, to understand these small nuances in the questions.

If you typically revise your own grant proposals, it may be beneficial to seek assistance from someone else during this step. You might believe that you have thoroughly answered a question, but someone unfamiliar with your research activities or project may notice key details that you have omitted.

Furthermore, consider if there is a distinct header for each mentioned point. Will the evaluator easily identify which section will address each point?

Additionally, refer to the evaluation criteria to confirm that the way you have structured your written content will effectively guide experts through the proposal.

2. Formatting aspects

Horizon Europe proposals have specific requirements in terms of fonts, margins and page numbers.

Make sure you have followed the instructions.

Especially when it comes to page limits, consider that any page exceeding the limit will be marked with a watermark and expert reviewers will be instructed not to read the pages in excess.

After so much effort, you do not want to risk that they loose the end of the story, isn’t it?

Let’s dive deep into the formatting requirements:

Page limits. A single-stage proposal should not be longer than 45 pages. For topics using lump sum funding, the limit is 50 pages.

Font. Use a font that is easy to read. The application guidelines are mentioning Times New Roman (Windows platforms), Times/Times New Roman (Apple platforms) or Nimbus Roman No. 9 L (Linux distributions) a the reference font for the body text of proposals. The use of a different font for the body text is not advised and is subject to the cumulative conditions that the font is legible and that its use does not significantly shorten the representation of the proposal in number of pages compared to using the reference font (for example with a view to bypass the page limit).

The minimum font size allowed is 11 points, with standard character spacing. This applies to the body text, including text in tables. Text elements other than the body text, such as headers, foot/end notes, captions, formula's, may deviate, but must be legible.

Line spacing. Line spacing is the amount of space that comes after each line of text. A minimum of single line spacing is to be used.

Margins. The page size is A4, and all margins (top, bottom, left, right) should be at least 15 mm (not including any footers or headers).

Headers and footer. In the header, insert the call identifier (the code) and the call name (the title). Adding the page numbering as a footer is a way to ensure that your material don’t get mixed up. The structure of the footer could be as follows Acronym - Part B - Page x of y.

Table of contents. According to the application guidelines, a table of contents is nomore mandatory. However, if you have enough space in the cover page, after the List of participants, you may include it there. If this is the case, please check that the referenced pages are correct.

Tables & figures. If you are introducing complex concepts or including a lot of data, consider using tables and/or figures instead of long and difficult to read sentences. It helps the reader quickly grasp the concept you are trying to explain or compare data. However, please consider that all tables, figures, and references are included as an integral part of these sections and are thus counted against the page limit.

Tags. The updated version of the application form includes tags. Be careful not to delete the tags, as they are needed for processing. Be also very careful in case you are using texts from a previous application, where tags were not included yet.

3. Consistency

In this last step, we will make sure that the information you provide is consistent throughout the document.

With the changes introduced in the application templates, cross-checking are less than before.

In the past the same information appeared in different places in the application template. For this reason, I was used to print out the last version of the application before submission, to sit down with a colleague and cross-check together - pen in hand - all the different elements.

Now, deliverables are no more mentioned at the end of the WP description and person-months are not included anymore in the WP tables, so it’s easier for new applicants, but, anyway, some checks still remain relevant.

It often happens that during the proposal writing you add Workpackages not foreseen when you first conceived your workplan, or that you re-arrange the order or move some tasks from a Workpackage to another.

Now it’s time to double-check any references against other sections and against tables and images, to ensure that there is no error.

If on page 2 you refer to section 3 for a detailed description, make sure that this is the case.

If in the objectives you mention that a certain milestone will be achieved at month 12, check that in the milestone table and in the Gantt chart the information is coherent.

If you changed your mind in respect to the title of one Workpackage, make sure that this has been replaced in all the parts of the proposal.

This is also valid for figures, Gantt chart and Pert chart. Is there any element included there that have changed during the weeks and that need to be replaced?

Any inconsistencies between different parts of the proposal can create confusion and problems with understanding how they link together or what resources will be required for each stage of the project - both key elements when considering whether to award funds or not!

Having consistency within your grant proposals also helps demonstrate professionalism; reviewers will appreciate seeing that you have taken time to consider every detail carefully before submitting.