ERA Chairs

Expected outcomes

• Projects may contribute to some of the expected outcomes; say which ones and why.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO9), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
• Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

• “Research organisations or research infrastructures in Widening countries seeking to establish an ERA Chair should submit a proposal with a prospective ERA Chair holder - an outstanding researcher or innovator in any scientific domain.”
• “Proposals should include a Curriculum Vitae (CV) in Europass form of the prospective ERA Chair holder, detailing their scientific and technical contributions to the coordinating institution.”
• “The CV should be uploaded as an Annex to the proposal.”
• “Proposals should also describe any relevant investments of the coordinator in research projects, facilities and infrastructures and how those will be achieved and/or a better use of the installed research capacity (in particular of EU co-funded research infrastructures & facilities).”
• “Existing or foreseen arrangements for compliance with ERA priorities including the European Charter for Researchers & Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers should be outlined in the proposal.”
• “ERA Chair holders should be excellent researchers and/or innovators in the chosen field of research.”
• “They should establish a research team fully integrated in the coordinator's institution to significantly improve its research performance in the scientific domain of choice and to be more successful in obtaining competitive funding.”
• “The recruitment of the research team must follow an open, transparent and merit-based process and should be conducted by an international panel chaired by the ERA Chair.”
• “The ERA Chair holder should have a position within the organization enabling them to drive institutional reforms within the organisation, ensure resource allocation, and to submit funding applications.”
• “A minimum 50% full-time equivalent (FTE) commitment, including on-site presence, must be ensured, at least until the appointment of a research group leader on a permanent basis.”
• “A description of the transition phase between the team leader and the ERA chair holder should be provided in the proposal, explaining also their share of tasks and their role in the remaining years of the project, in case the appointed research group leader is not the ERA Chair holder.”
• “In this case the ERA chair should remain committed (at least 20%) for the remaining duration of the project in support to the research leader to ensure efficient reforms and improved research performance.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Part B, sections 1–3: 28 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
• Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
• Coordination and support action: no research is funded. Evaluators look for coordination, networking, dissemination or policy support with a clear audience.
• Other Eligible Conditions: “To achieve the expected outcomes, participation as coordinators to the call is limited to legal entities established in Widening countries, as defined in the Horizon Europe regulation.”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “Applications may only be submitted by one legal entity (mono-beneficiary).”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: To allow for the assessment of the commitment of the future ERA Chair holder and of the coordinator institution, proposals must include: 1) a letter signed by the prospective ERA Chair holder expressing their commitment to the proposal corresponding to at least 50%…”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “2) a letter signed by the head of the coordinator institution committing to the proposal and stating that the ERA Chair holder will receive adequate support for their tasks and duties including, for example, access to research facilities, supervision of researchers, teaching duties (if any) and freedom to apply to…”
• Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds: “Seals of Excellence will be awarded to applications exceeding all of the evaluation thresholds set out in this work programme but which cannot be funded due to lack of budget available to the call.”
• Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds: “The following rules for dealing with ex-aequo applications apply: in the first place, ex-aequo proposals will be prioritised according to geographical diversity criteria, defined as proposals with coordinators established in a Widening country, not otherwise represented as coordinator higher up the ranking list. The…”

Impact pathway and traps

• The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
• For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
• Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
• Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.