Questions and Answers from the ERC Starting Grant Webinar

1. PI independence, publication record, PhD supervisor, track record

May I kindly know how much is important to either publish any paper or receiving any award independently from our PhD supervisor? How the independency of the potential candidate to be selected is evaluated or can be a criterion? Thank you
In the ERC StG it is mentioned that applicants should have at least one publication as main author without PhD Supervisor (you have also answered that below). Do you know if a pre-print publication counts for this or does it strictly have to be a peer-reviewed publication? Thanks.
Thank you for your response. The most important requirement seems to be having at least one publication without the PhD supervisor. If I do not have any publications without my supervisor, would it be better not to apply?
Please specify how the independency of a potential candidate will be evaluated? Thank you.
Are there any official requirements for the publication record of the applicants?
On the topic of publication without PhD supervisor – not even if you are senior author? If I moved to a different country, different university, lead different research line, but PhD supervisor is still among my collaborators and shares authorship on my publication, that would make me inelligeble?
I had three PhD supervisors involved in slightly different subfields, and I have first autorship in different papers having them as authors (not always all of them at once). I’m in a field (neuroscience) in which first authorship as a weight in terms of committment. Is it a good CV for a grant?
To be competitive in an ERC Stg do you need to have previously won and managed an independent research project? Are other markers of research independence also considered, e.g. publications without supervisors, editing peer-reviewed journal special issues, organisation of international conference?
For ERC Starting Grant, how essential are first-author/corresponding-author papers? I am UK-based, 3+ years post-PhD, with MSCA postdoc and other prestigious grants and co-author papers, but first-author papers are still in progress. Should I apply now or wait couple of years until its published?
I noticed that one of last year’s ERC Starting Grant winners had no first- or last-author publications independent of their PhD supervisor, except for one conference proceeding. How is research independence assessed consistently across different fields and publication cultures? (this case PE panel)
1- Would you consider the journals we published in as an indicator of excellence in our research? 2- would it be better to have many publications connected to our proposal in average journals or one publication in the best journal in our field? may be somehow useful to show independence and leadership or our experience in project management.

Consolidated answer

A Starting Grant Principal Investigator should have already shown evidence of the potential for research independence, for example by having produced at least one important publication as its main author or a publication without the participation of their PhD supervisor. However, there is no formal minimum publication requirement for ERC Starting Grant applicants, and the publication record is not an eligibility criterion. This example should therefore be understood as an indication of potential research independence, not as a strict rule determining eligibility or success.

Scientific independence is assessed broadly and in a field-sensitive way, taking into account the applicant’s CV and Track Record, career stage and individual circumstances. The CV and Track Record should be adapted to the ERC template and may include personal details, education, key qualifications, positions, up to ten selected research outputs, examples of peer recognition, career breaks, diverse career paths, life events and relevant contributions to the research community.
The selected research outputs do not have to be limited to journal articles. Depending on the field, they may include publications, preprints, books, book chapters, conference proceedings, datasets, software, patents, licences, standards, start-ups or other relevant achievements. Preprints may be included if properly referenced, for example with a DOI or stable link.

What matters is not only listing achievements, but briefly explaining their scientific significance, the applicant’s role in producing them, and how they demonstrate the capacity to successfully carry out the proposed project. If the PhD supervisor is still a co-author on some publications, this does not automatically make the applicant ineligible.
Examples of peer recognition may include awards, prizes, fellowships, invited talks at major conferences, memberships, editorial roles, leadership roles in the scientific community or other forms of recognition relevant to the applicant’s field and career stage. Applicants may briefly explain the significance of these examples, especially where their importance may not be obvious to evaluators from outside the specific subfield.
In the Additional Information section, applicants may provide relevant context such as career breaks, diverse or non-standard career paths, life events, or particularly noteworthy contributions to the research community. This information can help evaluation panels assess the applicant’s research achievements and peer recognition in relation to their career stage and individual circumstances.

2. Career stage, timing of application, StG vs CoG

Since now ERC Stg are open right away after the PhD, I was wondering how CVs and projects between someone who has just beeen awarded the PhD and someone who is 7 years later in the career can be compared in the same selection.
Some researchers are eligible for both an ERC Starting Grant and a Consolidator Grant. What considerations should inform the decision between the two?
Eligibility is now year 0 after PhD, but at that point one will not have won and managed other research projects. Is it better to wait and apply for other projects first to be competitive, or if one has an idea, good pubbl. record and other experience (conf. organis., SI editorship), apply right away
Is the CV of the PI evaluated according to your carrer stage, or only on its own compared to others? E.g. if you apply right after your PhD, would it be taken into account that this is the stage of your career or will you automatically be less competitive than an advanced PostDoc?
Is it necessary to have experience abroad to receive an ERC StG award?
If an applicant has followed a highly mobile career path (e.g. through fellowships and different laboratories), can this context be explained in the ERC CV, particularly if it has influenced the publication record (e.g. no Nature/Science papers, no phd student supervision)?
One last question: when talking about the CV, will we need to upload cover/reference letters to demonstrate what we say in the CV? I am thinking especially of activities outside the academia that

Consolidated answer

ERC Starting Grant applicants are assessed in relation to their career stage, field and individual circumstances. The evaluation panels do not expect the same CV from a researcher applying immediately after the PhD as from someone who is several years post-PhD. What matters is whether the applicant can demonstrate strong potential for research independence, scientific maturity and the capacity to lead the proposed project. Applicants who are eligible for both Starting Grant and Consolidator Grant should carefully consider which scheme best matches their profile and the maturity of their research career. A Starting Grant is intended for researchers who are starting, or have recently started, their own independent research team or programme. A Consolidator Grant is generally more suitable for researchers who have already further consolidated their independence and research leadership. International experience or experience abroad is not a formal requirement for receiving an ERC Starting Grant. A highly mobile career path can be explained in the CV, especially if it has influenced the publication record, supervision opportunities or other aspects of the applicant’s career development. The ERC CV also allows applicants to provide additional information on diverse career paths, career breaks, life events or other relevant circumstances. In general, applicants should use the CV and Track Record to clearly explain their achievements, their own role in them, and how these demonstrate their readiness to carry out the proposed ERC project. Additional documents such as reference letters should not be uploaded unless they are specifically requested in the call documentation.

3. Moving into a new research field / expertise / continuity

Does it hurt my chances that the project moves into an area I haven’t published in before and how would you handle that?
Do I need to be very expert in the topic I am proposing? Since the idea should be new how is that feasible?
Can I submit an ERC Starting Grant based on a research idea that doesn’t completely align with my previous CV? My earlier work focused on Late Antiquity, but now I can connect it to the adjacent period, creating scholarly continuity.
Is it better to stay in your own research field, or is it okay to move into a new one? For example, I have always worked on regeneration, but now I want to apply my ideas to cancer. Would it be a disadvantage if I don’t have cancer publications yet
Is it better to stay in your own research field, or is it okay to move into a new one? For example, I have always worked on regeneration, but now I want to apply my ideas to cancer. Would it be a disadvantage if I don’t have cancer publications yet?

Consolidated answer

Moving into a new or adjacent research field is not in itself a disadvantage in an ERC Starting Grant proposal. ERC supports frontier research in any field, and the project is expected to be ambitious, original and beyond the state of the art, not merely an incremental continuation of previous work. Therefore, the proposal does not necessarily have to be a direct continuation of the applicant’s earlier research. However, the applicant must convincingly show that they have the required scientific expertise and capacity to successfully carry out the proposed project. It is not necessary to have already published extensively in the exact topic of the proposed project, but the lack of such publications may need to be addressed through a clear explanation of relevant expertise, transferable skills, preliminary results where available, appropriate methodology, and, if relevant, the composition of the team or collaborations.

4. Interdisciplinarity and panel choice

General question: How can you select a panel for an interdisciplinary project? Should one go for keywords; or can one be also successful say in an Engineering panel when the keyword of the topic is in some ‘pure’ Physics panel?
If your proposal involves more than one panel and you are selected for the interview stage, do you present in both panels?
The ERC explicitly encourages interdisciplinary research, but interdisciplinary projects can sometimes risk not fully convincing reviewers from either field. How did you approach this challenge, and what strategies would you recommend making an interdisciplinary proposal compelling to a panel?

Consolidated answer

ERC panel selection should be guided less by disciplinary keywords and more by identifying the panel best suited to evaluate the proposal’s main scientific contribution. The ERC is explicitly designed to support frontier, groundbreaking research, including projects that cross disciplinary boundaries, so interdisciplinarity is not a disadvantage. What matters is whether your proposal can be fairly and expertly assessed by the panel you choose. Successful applicants typically select the panel most likely to appreciate the proposal’s primary intellectual contribution rather than its disciplinary terminology. Strong interdisciplinary proposals succeed because they present a compelling scientific vision, demonstrate excellence across disciplines, and show that the interdisciplinary approach is essential to addressing an important frontier research question.
Although the panel may draw on external reviewers or experts from other disciplines during the evaluation process, the interview itself is conducted solely by the panel to which you applied for as your primary evaluation panel.
For interdisciplinary proposals, writing for a broad scientific audience is especially important. While panel members are leading researchers, they may not be the specialists in every field represented in the proposal. The overarching research question, novelty, and transformative potential should therefore be immediately clear, along with a convincing explanation of why integrating multiple disciplines is scientifically necessary rather than merely beneficial. Interdisciplinarity should emerge as an integral part of the research design, not as an added layer of complexity.

5. Groundbreaking / high-risk high gain / ambition vs feasibility

Would you describe this funding scheme as supporting high risk high gain projects or more like low-risk high gain research??
It seems to me that there is a slight but important difference between having some previous experience in the project (e.g. a project with a smaller extension and funded by a national research institution) and the risk of incremental research. Can you please tell us more about this difference?
What if it is difficult to answer why my project couldn’t be done before and why now is the time? For example, maybe just nobody thought about it. Can the answer be simply that the research field is developing or do I need to dig some specific reason?
The structure of the B1 and B2 parts of the proposal has changed since 2025, e.g. feasibility should be evaluated only in B2 part. Would you still, however, advise mentioning it a little bit also in the B1 part? I don’t want the proposal to be rejected in the first stage due to being “too ambitious”

Consolidated answer

The ERC Starting Grant should be understood as supporting high-risk, potentially high-gain frontier research, but not risk without scientific discipline. The project should be ambitious enough to change, challenge, or significantly advance current understanding, while still being supported by a credible overall research strategy. The ERC explicitly refers to “ground-breaking, high-risk, and ambitious frontier research”, with scientific excellence as the sole evaluation criterion.

Previous experience, pilot work, or a smaller nationally funded project is not a weakness and does not automatically make the proposal incremental; although it can demonstrate the PI’s credibility and capacity. The important question is whether the ERC project constitutes a genuine scientific leap, rather than simply a larger, longer, or better-funded continuation of earlier work. The ERC guidance therefore stresses the need for truly novel ideas, not just continuations of ongoing work or existing collaboration.

Similarly, the answer to “why now?” does not need to rely on an artificial technological breakthrough or an external trigger. It may indeed be true that nobody previously formulated the question in this way. However, “nobody thought of it before” should be treated as the starting point of the argument, not as the complete argument. The proposal should still explain why the question remained invisible, neglected, or unresolved until now, and what intellectual, methodological, empirical, or interdisciplinary development makes it possible to address it convincingly today. In other words, the applicant should translate a personal insight into a clear scientific rationale.

Under the 2026 structure, Part I should not contain detailed feasibility analysis, but it should still present the overall approach or research strategy. The official explanation makes clear that “the point is not that an idea is sufficient and can stand alone without explanation of how it will be addressed”. Therefore, Part I should show why the idea matters, what is original, what may change in the field, and broadly how the project will pursue its objectives. Part II should then provide detailed methodology, work plan, risk assessment, mitigation measures, resources, and implementation arrangements. The response to concerns about being “too ambitious” is not to reduce ambition, but to make it focused, coherent, and supported by a clear scientific direction.

6. B1/B2 structure, methodology, writing style, visuals

1. This year there is no section titled “Output,” neither in Part B1 nor in Part B2. Should we include them in the Work Plan, in Part B2? 2. There are no indications regarding an Advisory Board. Can we add a section on this in Part B2?
Regarding the methodology in Part B2, should I provide formulas and sketches of theorems or just describe the idea in words as technically as possible?
In the proposals I have written so far, I usually used collective wording such as “we will,” “we plan,” and “we found.” Should an ERC proposal be written in the same way, or should I use “I” more often to emphasise my role as the PI?
Any advice on how to generate visuals for a Humanities project, where we do not necessarily always have data that can be visualised in charts?
I applied several years ago, when the B2 was 14 pages. Now that it’s 7 pages, how has writing the proposal changed?
I applied several years ago, when the B2 was 14 pages. Now that it’s 7 pages, how has writing the proposal changed?
How much time did you invest in “studying” rhe background sciences to develop your ideas? Myself I need to go through much literature before having some sparks, but the time for doing that is always super limited when you’re swamped in teaching and the “publish or perish” game.

Consolidated answer

ERC proposal templates have always been largely non-prescriptive, leaving it up to the PIs to provide a clear, cogent structure in their proposal. This remains the case also as of Work Programme 2026, but in addition, the ERC employs a revised, shorter ERC proposal template, along with some changes in the ERC evaluation procedure. As explained in an article by ERC president Maria Leptin, one reason for the shortened ERC proposal template (still with 5 pages for part I/B1 [plus 4 pages for CV/Track record) but now only 7 pages for part II/B2 in the Starting, Consolidator and Advanced Grant calls) was to avoid the duplications between part B1 and part B2 that were frequently observed in previous calls.

The overhaul of the proposal structure was accompanied by a specific change in what ERC panel members and remote referees will focus on in each of the two evaluation steps. Whereas previously part B1 was referred to as “extended synopsis” and meant to present the essence of the entire proposal, including core information on feasibility, the role of part B1/Part I in the new proposal structure is somewhat different. It should now mainly focus on communicating the exciting prospects opened by the proposal: why has the field “been waiting for” this great idea, how will the project change the field by answering an important question?

Along with this, the ERC Scientific council decided to put less emphasis on feasibility aspects in the first evaluation step, which is why the explicit question on feasibility has been removed from the evaluation questions listed in step 1 in the ERC Work Programme. However, the (often generalist) panel members will still likely expect some essential information to help them understand that the ambitious approach is not drawn out of thin air. Thus, part I should also outline the overall research strategy to reach the project goals, showing that the approach is scientifically convincing, but without going into details, e.g. particularities of risk mitigation plans. As before, only part I is read at step one of the evaluation processes, by panel members only. In step 2 of the evaluation, both part B1/I and part B2/II become accessible to the panel and to remote (specialist) referees who have been appointed by the panel members, based on the information they read in part B1/I. Part B2/II should effectively complement part B1/I and demonstrate to panel and remote reviewers that the fascinating idea presented in part I can be realistically pursued by the approach the PI proposes. While the connection to part I should be evident (e.g. consistency in the wording of the objectives), part II should provide “detailed explanation of the project implementation, including research methodology, work plan, risk assessment, and mitigating measures and any further necessary background not included in Part I” (see ERC Work Programme). Where relevant, this would also seem a fitting place to include information on an Advisory Board. Overall, Part B2/ II should thus provide a fitting level of technical information/detail to convince specialist remote referees, but also be consistent with part I. Thus, the overall approach should be understandable also to generalist ERC panel members who will eventually ask/read out questions posed by specialist remote referees or specialist panel members during the interview in step 2 and decide on the funding of the proposal.

With respect to questions regarding writing styles for the proposal, we frequently hear from panel members that the proposal should come across as authentic. Furthermore, it is our impression that using active voice, i.e. “We will/I will, plan to…”, in a manner authentic to the field, can be helpful for a strong, confident voice of the PI in the proposal. The use of visuals can be helpful in all fields, e.g. also providing a crisp, highly accessible overview on the overall approach of the proposal.

7. Team, collaborators, advisory board, host institution, consortium

How important is it to build an internationl team for the project? Is international cooperation valued more than local cooperation?
How important is to have already names of the whole team, and describe their roles?
Was the advisory board -for example in the microcode project – explicit in the proposal (names number of members, engagement secured.)?
I am planning to apply for ERC next year. I am trying to put together different researchers from different EU countries as a consortium to work on a specific research problem in our field. Does having a team of researchers help increasing the chance of getting the fund?
Do we need a publication that shows capacity to build our methodology, i.e. hybrid economic models with AI coupling? Should the mentors be renowned experts in the field?
How important is it that you have identified your project TEAM by the point of application?
How useful is referring to access to Host Institution facilities or collaborators’ additional expertise to reflect the ERC project feasibility?

Consolidated answer

International collaboration is not evaluated for its own sake in an ERC Grant. ERC funds a single Principal Investigator (PI) and their research team at one Host Institution. Reviewers assess scientific excellence and whether collaborations are scientifically justified. A strong local team is preferable to an unnecessarily international one if it best serves the project.

The applicants are not expected to have identified the full team before submission. Describing the expertise required, planned positions (e.g., postdocs, PhD students, research engineer), and their expected roles would be sufficient. Named researchers could be mentioned if they are already committed.

An advisory board is optional in ERC proposals and should only be included if it has a clear scientific role in the project. Formal letters of commitment are usually not necessary.

ERC grants are not consortium projects. However, collaborations with researchers from the Host Institution, from outside the Host Institution, or from other legal entities are possible if they bring clear scientific added value to the project. The composition of the team should therefore be driven by the needs of the research project, not by the aim of making the project international.

The applicant does not need to have publications demonstrating every aspect of the proposed methodology. However, the publication record should help convince reviewers that the PI has the expertise and capacity to carry out the project successfully. Renowned mentors are not required; ERC panels assess the PI’s potential for independence, excellence and ability to lead the proposed project.

Recruitment commonly occurs after the grant is awarded. The feasibility of the proposed team structure is more important than naming individuals. Providing a realistic staffing plan and explaining the expertise needed might be more important.
Clearly explaining access to specialised facilities, equipment, datasets, infrastructure, and complementary expertise strengthens the project’s credibility and feasibility. Support from the Host Institution can reinforce confidence that the research can be successfully implemented.

8. Budget, additional funding, equipment, fieldwork

I am developing a proposal with substantial international fieldwork that may require an additional €1 million. Can the core project rely on that additional funding if well justified, or should it be fully feasible in the standard €1.5 million? Is it appropriate to present Plan A and Plan B?
Regarding equipment, are the full purchase costs eligible to the ERC project, or only depreciation costs during the project?
Additional Costs: What can be understood as field research – would focus groups or major cross-national surveys using specialised companies be acceptable?
If a proposal includes substantial fieldwork that may require some of the additional €1 million. Can the core project rely on that additional funding, or should it be fully feasible in the standard €1.5 million? Is it appropriate to present Plan A and Plan B?
Regarding the additional funding of 1M made available, how is a “major equipment” determined? Is there a guideline for at what price/cost does a certain equipment becomes “major” (e.g., above 100k, 200k, 400k)? Thank you

Consolidated Answer (Leda Skoufari-Themistou, NCP Cyprus)

Applicants may request additional funding of up to €1 million or up to €2 million for researchers relocating to the EU or an Associated Country from elsewhere to take up an ERC Grant.

Additional funding is intended to cover further eligible costs for any cost category when these are necessary to carry out the proposed work. The request for additional funding must be duly justified in the proposal. Both the grant amount and any additional funding requested are assessed during evaluation.

Requests for additional funding must be duly justified in the proposal narrative and explained in the Section C – Resources and included in the appropriate budget category(ies) in the financial table (in the proposal there is no budget line specific for the additional funding).

Applicants are expected to submit a single coherent proposal and budget. Separate ‘plan A’ and ‘plan B’ versions of the project are not expected. Evaluation panels will assess whether the additional funding is necessary and justified in the context of the project and whether the requested costs are reasonable and aligned with the proposal’s scope. Panels may approve or reject the request for additional funding independently of the proposal itself. A rejected funding request does not result in rejection of the proposal; it would only lead to a reduction in the awarded budget.

ERC does not define a fixed monetary threshold for what counts as “major equipment”. The assessment is made in relation to the nature of the equipment, its importance for the project, and the justification provided in the proposal.

Because these important assets outlive the project timeline, for all ERC main grants the purchase of equipment, infrastructure, or other assets used for the action must be budgeted as depreciation costs, in line with the beneficiary’s usual accounting practices. However, at the request of the applicant, equipment, infrastructure, or other assets purchased specifically for the action (or developed as part of the action tasks) may exceptionally be included as full capitalised costs. These items should be clearly listed and justified in the proposal.

Although in the ERC context, fieldwork is not defined in the Work Programme or Model Grant Agreement, it is generally understood to be research activities carried out outside the applicant’s usual research facilities in order to collect primary data, observations, samples or other research material directly from the field or from study participants. Costs related to fieldwork can be eligible provided they fulfil the eligibility criteria, which amongst others, should be directly linked to the research performed and necessary for the implementation of the action. These eligibility conditions apply equally to the PI and the members of the research team. These elements must be clearly described in the proposal and will be assessed by the panel based on the proposed activities. If specialised companies are involved, the applicant should carefully consider the appropriate cost category. Depending on the nature of the service, this may be treated as subcontracting or as purchase of services.

9. Evaluation process, Step 2, interview, panel work, feedback

Hi, is the kind of feedback you received on your application likely to help you revise and improve your project for a future resubmission? Thank you!
Do all the proposals that go to step 2 go to interview?
Do all the panel members read the proposal? In other funding schemes (e.g. NSF) just 2 members of the panel go through each proposal and somehow present it to the rest of the panel

Consolidated answer

ERC feedback can be very helpful, but it should be read carefully and strategically. It is not usually a detailed rewriting plan, and it should not be treated as if the panel were telling the applicant exactly how to redesign the project. Rather, it reflects the main strengths and weaknesses identified during the evaluation process. At Step 2, this is particularly important because the panel assesses the full proposal and the interview, and the feedback reflects the main scientific concerns emerging from that assessment.

For future resubmission, applicants should look for a deeper message behind the comments. Are the concerns about originality, ambition, feasibility, methodology, the PI’s capacity to deliver the project, or whether the proposal is sufficiently frontier-research oriented rather than incremental. Sometimes feedback points to weaknesses that can be addressed directly. In other cases, it may signal that the project needs more fundamental rethinking (for example, a sharper research question, a stronger explanation of what is genuinely new, a clearer risk-gain logic, or a more convincing methodological architecture).

For ERC Starting Grants, proposals admitted to Step 2 are invited to an interview. The interview is part of the Step 2 evaluation process. However, the number of proposals admitted to Step 2 is limited: for Starting, Consolidator and Advanced Grants, each panel conducts a maximum of 44 interviews at Step 2. Reaching Step 2 is therefore already a strong signal that the proposal was considered competitive after the first stage of evaluation, but the final outcome depends on the full Step 2 assessment, including the interview.

Regarding the way proposals are read and discussed, the ERC process is different from a model in which only two panel members read a proposal in detail and then present it to the rest of the panel. At Step 1, proposals are assigned to panel members for individual review, and the panel then discusses the proposals and establishes the ranking. At Step 2, the complete proposal is reviewed by panel members and by remote referees, who bring additional specialist expertise.

It is therefore safer to say that the proposal is assessed by several experts and then discussed by the panel, rather than to assume that every single panel member reads every proposal at the same level of detail. Lead reviewers have an important role in preparing and presenting the proposal for discussion, but the final assessment is a panel decision, based on the individual reviews, the panel discussion and, at Step 2, the interview.

10. Resubmission restrictions / B score / applying to another ERC scheme

For the 2027 call, the previous resubmission restrictions remain in place. If an applicant receives a B in 2027, has it already been decided whether the restriction for the 2028 call will be one year or two years, or is this still under discussion?
If I apply to an ERC Starting and get a B or lower, can I apply to ERC Consolidator the year after (if I am eligible)?
If someone is banned from reapplying, could them change to consolidator (if of course they meet the legibility window) in the next year or is the ban to any ERC schemes?

Consolidated answer

The ERC has stated that the eligibility rules for 2028 will only be legally defined in the 2028 Work Programme (expected in mid-2027). Until then, whether a ‘B’ in 2027 will result in a 1-year or 2-year restriction is still open, as the Council continues to review alternative measures to tackle oversubscription.

Your ability to apply for a Consolidator Grant (CoG) in the following year depends on the stage of evaluation at which you received your score. If you receive a score of ‘B’ or ‘C’ at Step 1 of a Starting Grant (StG) evaluation (e.g., in the 2026 call), you are ineligible to apply for any of the main ERC schemes (including Consolidator Grants) in the next call year (2027). However, if you progress to the second stage of evaluation and receive a score of ‘B’ at Step 2, the current resubmission restrictions do not impose a ban for the following year. In that case, you could apply for a CoG next year, provided you meet the eligibility window (which is 5 to 15 years post-PhD defense).

If an applicant is subject to a resubmission restriction due to their evaluation outcome in the previous year (specifically receiving a ‘B’ or ‘C’ at Step 1), the ban applies to all main ERC grant schemes. According to the Resubmission Restrictions table, restricted applicants are ineligible for the Starting, Consolidator, Advanced, ERC Plus, and Synergy Grant calls during the restricted period. You cannot circumvent the ban by switching to a different scheme like Consolidator Grant; you must wait until the restriction period ends before submitting any new proposal to these schemes.

11. Other grants, similar projects, time commitment

Is there a limit to how many other grants you can have in the meantime? Wondering about the 50% time rule
How important is it to justify ongoing project applications in part B2? If we have a grant on a similar topic, do we need to elaborate it in very detail?

Consolidated Answer

There is no general limit on the number of other grants a PI may hold while applying for or implementing an ERC Starting Grant. However, the PI must be able to respect the ERC time commitment rule, which for a Starting Grant means dedicating at least 50% of their working time to the ERC project. If the applicant has ongoing or planned projects on a similar topic, these should be clearly explained in the proposal, in particular in Part B2 and in the Funding ID section. A succinct Funding ID must be included, specifying any current research grants and their subject, as well as any ongoing applications for work related to the proposal.

12. Project fit / specific project example

I am not sure who my question is for but would ERC starting grant be a good grant for a historical research on conflict in the Middle East (partly done so preliminary date available) with an audio-visual output to share the outcomes and increase understanding in larger audiences?

Consolidated answer

An ERC Starting Grant can support research in all fields, including historical research, provided that the project is ambitious, frontier research, and goes beyond the state of the art.