An ERC proposal is intellectually owned by the Principal Investigator, but it should not be prepared in isolation.
Different people are useful at different stages. The most effective support usually comes from using each source for the problem it is actually qualified to solve.
Quick answer
A good support network may include:
- your Host Institution research or grants office for institutional and submission requirements;
- your ERC National Contact Point for call rules and applicant support;
- scientific peers and senior researchers for field-specific challenge;
- previous ERC applicants or grantees for lived experience of the process;
- external proposal reviewers or consultants for independent structure, clarity, reviewer logic and red-team review;
- ERCEA for specific questions that require an official answer.
The scientific idea, claims and final authorship remain the PI's responsibility.
Your Host Institution research office
The research office should normally be one of the first institutional contacts once you are seriously considering an application.
They can help with:
- Host Institution support requirements;
- internal deadlines;
- submission-system access;
- budget preparation and institutional cost rules;
- ethics and administrative requirements;
- institutional approvals;
- practical questions about recruitment, facilities and grant setup.
They may also coordinate internal ERC support, mock panels or previous-applicant networks.
The quality of this support varies by institution, so ask early what is available.
Your ERC National Contact Point
The ERC states that National Contact Points provide information and personalised support to applicants in their country.
NCPs are particularly useful for:
- interpreting the current call conditions;
- understanding eligibility and submission requirements;
- applicant webinars and workshops;
- national or regional support schemes;
- directing you to relevant official material;
- explaining recurring administrative questions.
NCPs do not represent the ERC, but they are part of the official Horizon Europe support structure.
Find ERC National Contact Points ->
Scientific peers
Peers are essential because ERC proposals are scientific documents before they are grant documents.
Ask different readers to do different jobs.
A close specialist can challenge the mechanism, evidence and originality.
A strong scientist outside your exact subfield can test whether Part I is understandable to an expert generalist.
A senior researcher can challenge whether the project really establishes an independent five-year direction.
Avoid asking every reviewer to rewrite the text. Ask them to identify the scientific problem they think you are solving, what they believe the central hypothesis is, and where they remain unconvinced.
Previous ERC applicants and grantees
Researchers who have been through the process can provide valuable practical context:
- how they organised drafting;
- what institutional support was useful;
- how they prepared for the interview;
- what feedback surprised them;
- what they would do differently.
Their proposal should not become your template. Their experience can help you understand the process.
ERCEA and official ERC support
Some questions require an official answer.
The ERC currently provides dedicated applicant contact routes for open calls and points applicants to ERCEA for funding/application questions.
Use this route for uncertainties that should not be resolved by a consultant's interpretation, such as a call-specific administrative issue or formal submission condition.
ERC contact and applicant support ->
External proposal support
External support is most valuable when it adds a perspective that the PI and immediate research group do not already have.
Useful roles include:
- concept and ambition review;
- Part I / B1 architecture;
- Part II / B2 coherence;
- reviewer-style red-team review;
- conceptual figures;
- scientific-risk and outcome-space review;
- CV and independence narrative;
- interview rehearsal.
The purpose is not to replace the scientist's intellectual work. It is to help expose weaknesses before the proposal reaches independent evaluators.
What Arvacore does
Arvacore supports researchers with scientific proposal strategy and review rather than selling a guaranteed outcome.
The role is to help make the scientific question, ambition, logic and evidence easier to understand; identify avoidable weaknesses; and increase the competitiveness of the proposal before evaluation.
The science remains yours.
Explore ERC grant consulting ->
A practical support map
| Question | Best first source |
|---|---|
| Am I eligible? | Current ERC documents + NCP |
| What institutional documents do I need? | Host Institution research office |
| Is this scientific question genuinely important? | Scientific peers |
| Is Part I understandable to a generalist panel member? | External scientific reader / proposal reviewer |
| How should I justify this unusual administrative case? | NCP / ERCEA |
| Does my CV demonstrate independence? | Senior scientific peer + independent reviewer |
| Is my proposal internally coherent? | Red-team review |
| How should I prepare for the interview? | Mock panel / experienced reviewers / previous applicants |
Build feedback in stages
Do not wait until the proposal is almost finished.
A useful sequence is:
Concept stage
Get feedback on the scientific question, ambition and possible outcomes.
Part I stage
Test whether the scientific case works before Part II becomes deeply developed.
Full-draft stage
Test the interaction between Part I, Part II, CV, team, budget and risk.
Pre-submission stage
Check compliance, consistency and readability.
Interview stage
Shift from writing to scientific defence.
If you are at the blank-page stage
Start with: