ERC Grants Get a Makeover: Proposal Restructure, Up-Front Ambition, Streamlined Reviews and Flexible Eligibility

The European Research Council (ERC) Scientific Council regularly reviews its procedures to ensure they best serve the research community. The introduction of some fairly major changes to these procedures for the 2026 work programme, followed by some rather seismic adjustments to the eligibility windows for the Starting and Consolidator calls from 2027, represents the response to the most recent review. 

In light of these changes and in reaction to the uncertainty surrounding these major procedural and policy shifts, the recently reappointed ERC President, Prof Maria Leptin, and the ERC have released further information explaining the reasoning behind these adjustments.

Changes to ERC Evaluation Procedures and Eligibility Windows

The ERC Scientific Council is responsible for establishing the strategic framework that guides the development and implementation of ERC programmes. This strategy is informed by a comprehensive understanding of the evolving needs of the European research community and is designed to effectively support both current and prospective ERC grantees. In turn, the strategic framework serves as the foundation for the ERC’s annual work programme, which delineates the funding priorities for the forthcoming year. It specifies the allocation of financial resources across funding calls and outlines the procedural mechanisms through which these funds will be administered. The ERC annual work programme, which is approved by the European Commission, outlines funding activities and evaluation mechanisms. 

Through extensive consultation and considering feedback from applicants, panel members, and the wider research community, areas in need of refinement and improvement were identified, leading to significant changes in three main areas:

1.  The format of the scientific proposal, especially regarding feasibility assessment.

2.  Measures to make the workload for evaluation panels more manageable.

3.  Adjustments to eligibility windows for Starting and Consolidator Grants.

1. Format of the Scientific Proposal

Background

Since 2008, ERC proposals have had a two-part structure. Initially, in 2007, a two-stage process was used, but this resulted in protracted decision cycles. The system since 2008 involves a single submission with a two-step evaluation: Part B1 (Extended Synopsis, CV, and track record) is reviewed first, and only shortlisted proposals proceed to Part B2 (full scientific proposal and annexes).

Issues Identified

Feedback from applicants and panel members indicated confusion about what content belonged in each section. Some information needed for the first step was missing from Part B1, while Part B2 often repeated much of Part B1. Panel members also reported difficulties in assessing project feasibility at step 1 in the absence of detailed methodology, which was only available in Part B2. This sometimes led to cautious assessments that could exclude high-risk, innovative proposals too early.

New Structure

After surveying panel members and considering alternatives, the Council decided to retain the two-part structure but redefine the focus of each part:

-   Part I should present the research idea, current state of knowledge, scientific question, objectives        and overall approach. It must convince the panel of the originality and importance of the idea and        its potential to advance the field. Only Part I and the applicant’s CV are assessed at step 1.

-    Part II should detail the project’s implementation, including methodology, work plan, risk                        assessment, budget justification and background not included in Part I. An additional annex lists          ongoing and pending grants.

Feasibility Assessment

A key change is the removal of feasibility assessment at step 1. The Council concluded that focusing on feasibility too early risks rejecting ambitious projects. Instead, applicants must outline their overall approach in Part I, with detailed methodology and feasibility only assessed through Part II at step 2. This shift aims to allow panels to focus first on scientific ambition and creativity, then on implementation.

Length and Content

Debate over the length of Part I resulted in retaining the five-page limit, balancing the need for thorough explanation with workload concerns. Part II is limited to seven pages (ten for Synergy Grants), a significant decrease from that previously allowed. Importantly, and in my opinion, wisely, the two parts should be complementary, not redundant: Part I makes the case for the idea’s significance and originality, while Part II explains how it will be implemented.    

2. Workload for Panel Members

Review Numbers

The ever-increasing number of applications received by the ERC has made the workload for panel members nearly unmanageable. Recent, staggering figures released concerning the ERC Advanced Grants 2025 call, which closed on August 28th, revealed that application numbers were up 31% compared to last year and 82% more than the year before that.  

Similar increases across the suite of ERC calls, while most welcome in terms of the emergence of brilliant and innovative ideas and research, could lead to compromised evaluation standards, should the status quo of evaluation be maintained. Therefore, changes are practical and necessary in order to maintain the high evaluation standards we expect from the ERC evaluation process. 

Number of readers per application 

Previously, each application was reviewed by four panel members; this has been reduced to the legal minimum of three, except for interdisciplinary or complex proposals. Additional reviewers can be assigned, if needed.

Written Feedback

Previously, panel members provided both a qualitative rating and a written comment on the applicant at step 1. The written comments were often generic or unhelpful. The new procedure eliminates the requirement for free-text comments at step 1. Instead, reviewers provide individual ratings for each question about the applicant, which are communicated to the applicant, with qualitative free-text optional. 

Discussion of Low-Ranking Applications

Until now, every proposal had to be discussed at the panel meeting, even those with unanimous low scores. Now, proposals that receive a score of 3.5 or lower from all reviewers do not require discussion unless a panel member requests it. This change is expected to reduce the number of proposals requiring discussion by about 30%. However, the rule is not a ban; any reviewer can still request discussion of a proposal.

Rationale for the New Rule

The decision to use a single high score as the threshold for discussion (rather than an average) is based on the view that proposals with disparate scores may lead to breakthrough discoveries. The aim is not to rank all proposals but to ensure that any proposal with support from at least one reviewer is discussed.

3. Adjustments to Eligibility Windows from the 2027 Work Programme

New Eligibility Periods

From 2027, eligibility for Starting Grants will begin immediately after PhD defence and last for ten years. Consolidator Grants will be available from five to fifteen years post-PhD. This overlap allows flexibility for different career paths. 

Rationale

The ERC aims to fund the most ambitious research and talented researchers, targeting different career stages through Starting, Consolidator, and Advanced Grants. However, career trajectories in academia have changed, with longer periods before researchers achieve independence. As an example of divergent routes to independence, comparative examples were given between potential careers in mathematics or law as opposed to life sciences or engineering. For example, in the life sciences, long postdoctoral periods are the norm, and a potential applicant may spend five years as a postdoc, then set up their own lab and team over a couple of further years to establish independence. In this example, seven years may have elapsed post PhD by the time they are ready to apply for an ERC grant. In contrast, within mathematics, it is common for individuals to secure an independent position immediately after completing their doctorate. Mathematicians who develop a new research direction during their PhD, and may have already started pursuing it, might prefer not to delay applying for a grant by two years.

Addressing Competition Concerns

Concerns that longer windows might disadvantage junior applicants are addressed by the fact that competition occurs within panels of similar fields and career stages. Data show that, except for the first year, success rates are equal across the eligibility window. To further reduce competition, no one may receive more than one Starting Grant and one Consolidator Grant and previous holders must apply for the next stage of grant.

Other Policies

All other current policies for extending eligibility periods remain in force. The Council acknowledges that even well-intentioned changes may not be perfect and commits to monitoring outcomes and seeking feedback from the research community.

Conclusion

The ERC’s changes to evaluation procedures are designed to:

- Clarify and streamline the proposal format, focusing first on the idea’s significance and then on      implementation.

- Reduce the workload for panel members in the face of soaring application numbers by lowering the number of required reviewers, simplifying feedback, and limiting discussion of low-ranking proposals.

- Adapt eligibility windows to reflect evolving academic career paths, ensuring flexibility and               fairness.

These changes are based on extensive consultation and data analysis, with the aim of supporting ambitious, high-quality research across Europe. The Council will continue to monitor the impact of these changes and adjust as necessary in response to feedback from the research community.