This checklist is designed for the final scientific review before submission. It does not replace the ERC Work Programme, Information for Applicants or Funding & Tenders Portal requirements.
Use it to test whether the proposal is scientifically coherent, easy to evaluate and ready for a demanding panel review.
1. Central scientific question
- Can the central question be stated in one sentence?
- Is it a scientific question rather than a technical deliverable?
- Is the answer genuinely unknown?
- Does the question matter beyond the immediate experiment?
- Is the unknown linked to a clear limitation in current knowledge?
- Would answering it change understanding, capability or research direction?
2. Scientific ambition
- Is the proposal more than a specification improvement?
- Is there a clear conceptual leap beyond the state of the art?
- Is the strongest outcome large enough to justify a five-year frontier-research programme?
- Could the programme create new questions or work for the field beyond the grant itself?
- Is the ambition precise rather than exaggerated?
3. Hypothesis or intellectual proposition
- Is the central proposition explicit?
- Can it be challenged by evidence?
- Is there at least one result that would make you revise the hypothesis?
- Are plausible alternative explanations identified?
- Does the project remain scientifically useful if the preferred hypothesis is wrong?
4. Part I / B1
- Part I fits within the current five-page limit.
- The first page establishes the problem and scientific tension quickly.
- The state of the art is selective and relevant.
- The central question is visible.
- The new idea is explicit.
- Objectives are framed around knowledge rather than activities.
- The overall research strategy is understandable without reading Part II.
- The potential field-level consequence appears before the conclusion.
- Methodological detail has not displaced the scientific vision.
5. Figures
- Every figure has one clear scientific job.
- The first conceptual figure can be understood quickly.
- Figure titles state purpose or conclusion rather than "overview".
- Captions explain why the figure matters.
- Text remains readable at normal page scale.
- Figures add information rather than repeat nearby prose.
- Decorative graphics have been removed.
6. Part II / B2
- Part II fits within the current seven-page limit for Starting Grants.
- Methodology is connected to scientific decisions.
- Each major method produces evidence relevant to the central question.
- Competing explanations can be discriminated.
- Work packages have scientific purposes.
- Dependencies are visible.
- Decision points are explicit where useful.
- Alternative routes protect the scientific objective rather than merely preserving activity.
7. Scientific and execution risk
- Scientific risk is stated honestly.
- Execution risks are treated separately.
- The programme contains meaningful scientific optionality.
- Alternative outcomes lead to interpretable conclusions.
- Technical failure modes have realistic mitigations.
- The risk plan does not make the project look artificially certain.
8. Preliminary evidence
- Preliminary evidence is included only where it strengthens the argument.
- It establishes plausibility, access or scientific tension.
- It does not make the central question appear already solved.
- The proposal remains valuable if preliminary indications do not reproduce exactly.
9. Team
- Every role maps to a scientific need.
- The PI's intellectual leadership is clear.
- Postdoctoral roles have appropriate seniority and autonomy.
- PhD projects are coherent parts of the programme rather than isolated topics.
- Collaborators add expertise that does not need to be permanently internalised.
- Supervision load is realistic.
- The group can function as an integrated research programme.
10. CV and Track Record
- The selected outputs show scientific contribution, not only prestige.
- Your role in important outputs is clear where useful.
- The record demonstrates the expertise needed for this project.
- The proposal establishes scientific independence from former supervisors or groups.
- Career stage is presented accurately.
- Quantitative metrics are not being used as a substitute for scientific contribution.
11. Host Institution
- The host is eligible under the current ERC rules.
- The environment supports the programme scientifically.
- Required facilities and infrastructure are credible.
- PI independence is protected.
- Any relocation or institutional transition is explained where relevant.
12. Budget
- The standard grant and any additional funding request follow current ERC rules.
- Personnel costs follow the scientific architecture.
- Equipment is linked to specific research constraints.
- Facility access is justified scientifically.
- Large costs are easy for a panel to understand.
- The budget is sufficient without being padded.
13. Panel choice
- The primary panel matches the central scientific breakthrough.
- Panel descriptors and keywords are consistent with the proposal.
- A secondary panel is used only where genuinely useful.
- The proposal is intelligible to expert generalists in the selected panel.
14. Evaluation readiness
- A Step 1 reviewer can explain the project after one reading.
- The proposal's strongest scientific claim is easy to locate.
- The PI-project fit is visible from the CV and narrative.
- Part I does not depend on Part II to make the idea understandable.
- Part II does not simply repeat Part I.
15. Interview readiness
Even before Step 1 results, ask:
- Can I explain the project in a short presentation?
- Can I state the central hypothesis without slides?
- Can I explain what would falsify it?
- Can I defend the team and budget scientifically?
- Can I explain what happens if the preferred result is absent?
- Can I answer "why you, why now, why ERC?" without generic wording?
16. Submission quality
- The correct 2027 templates are being used.
- Page limits and formatting rules are checked against the current call documents.
- Administrative forms are complete.
- Funding ID information is complete where required.
- Ethics and security questions are answered accurately.
- References and figure labels are consistent.
- External links are not carrying essential information that reviewers need to evaluate the proposal.
- The final PDF has been checked after upload for formatting changes.
The final three questions
Before submission, I would reduce the entire review to three questions.
Is the question important enough?
A technically strong project is not automatically an ERC project.
Is the answer uncertain enough?
If the main hypothesis cannot realistically fail, the frontier-research case may be weak.
Is the programme designed well enough to learn from uncertainty?
Scientific risk is useful only when the programme can produce interpretable knowledge across plausible outcomes.
If those three answers are convincing, the proposal has the right foundation for the more detailed checks above.
Official resources
Always complete the final compliance check against the current ERC Starting Grant page, the 2027 Work Programme and the Information for Applicants.