Thread by @AkisPapantonis

Science Twittersphere is largely a platform where successes are shared and applauded (and rightfully so, given the frustrating nature of everyday reality); I have not escaped this myself. Today however, I will share what has been a low in my academic life, related to #ERC grants.

...I applied 3x for an @ERC_Research grant. Never got one, once I made it through to the interviews round. However, I have received feedback for all three proposals and, of course, for my CV. And this feedback included 4-9 reviewers. Three things stood out in my view:

1. The use of qualifying words like "outstanding" and "excellent" is, in my opinion, wrong and should not be taken to reflect anything else than a relative ranking. It would be better for everyone, reviewers and applicants alike, if A-D was used.

2. In my first application, when I was a junior group leader and already had quite a few (decent I hope) last author papers, one reviewer thought it was good to write "this applicant has produced nothing of significance to date; perhaps some average interest papers as a postdoc".

...this might be absolutely true (only others can judge the significance of our work, really), but one would imagine that the words used for a young academic with only few years as a PI could have been chosen more wisely and with a sense of empathy.

3. In my latest application, one of the reviewers wrote (and I quote): "I worry about the design of the experiments as it would allow the PI to cherry pick the results"! This is a verbatim quote, and is in my opinion absolutely unacceptable. To the extent that...

...this person should be asked to either offer proof that I indeed cherry pick results(!) or that there are genomics experiments or genome-wide screens (this is the kind of work proposed) that particularly allow cherry picking.

I am not actually offended or enraged by such comments. I feel they moderate my romanticism about science, which is not a bad thing, and they also help teach my lab peers on the very basics on empathy and attitude that one should have when reviewing grants or papers.

In the end, there is no situation from which one comes out of without having learned something. And at the same time, I would be more than happy to keep having the privilege of being able to have a lab and generate many more "mediocre" pieces of work. Cheers!