Fellowships - General Comments

Publication list: Most applications will require you to submit a publication list, and it is likely to be the first thing that a referee or panel member will look at; if you don't have a long enough list of good papers then you may be wasting your time. However, don't try to inflate it by including loads of 'in prep.' papers  - if you claim that you have more than 2-3 papers in prep., they can't be very prepared!

Only give the journal name if a paper is published, in press or submitted - not if the manuscript is still in preparation (nobody is impressed if you say you are going to submit 3 papers to Nature and Science, unless that is the kind of journal you've recently been publishing in). Also don't present a single list of publications that mixes 'real' refereed papers up with minor (non-refereed) papers, reports and abstracts, you will dilute the impact of the good papers and give the impression that you give them equal weighting.

Have separate sub-headings that list 'Major papers' and 'Minor papers/abstracts/reports'. If you only have a small number of papers then it is worth indicating your contribution to jointly authored ones (e.g. 'I collected all of the data, conducted all analyses, and wrote the first draft of the paper').

Referees: These are very important, but don't ask a big cheese to be a referee unless they actually know you and can say something meaningful. A bland reference (even from an FRS) doesn't help your case. Equally, don't get your ex-office mate to do it - you want someone of at least some status in the field who can comment knowledgeably but objectively on what you've been doing, what you are like and what you propose to do.

It's fairly typical that one should be an ex-supervisor, but the other 1-2 are trickier. Ideally you want to show that you have a developing reputation, so at least one of these should be from a different institution from where you did your PhD (and preferably is not in the UK). It's also preferable if at least one of them has not published with you, and none of them should be at the institution where you intend to hold the Fellowship, else they may not appear impartial.

Think about who these might be well ahead (e.g. months) of the deadline, and if necessary prepare the ground by making sure that they know what you've been doing. Give them all the ammunition that they might need, by sending them your CV and proposal. Ask their permission well ahead of the deadline.

Project: Vitally important. Many of the general points for grant applications apply (see Grant Applications - General Points), although most fellowship schemes do not require you to provide much detail on costings (but NERC now does). Do not plan a project that is simply an extension of your previous research - you are trying to convince the funding body that you are an independent scientist who is capable of thinking up your own exciting project, so it mustn't just follow on from your previous job.

It's best if it's clearly distinct from your PhD and first postdoc, both in terms of concept and methodology, because this will illustrate that you are broad-minded. But if you are going to learn new techniques (which is a good thing), make it clear who will be training you - they will want reassurance that you will be getting the right support and are working in a suitable environment. The ideal project is one that combines something with which you are familiar with something that will be new to you.

Host institution: You need to reassure funders that you will be based in an appropriate department, with access to appropriate facilities and advice. What makes Glasgow an appropriate host? Can it provide what you will need? In general you need to have good reasons to stay in the same place where you have earlier been based - funders want to be convinced that you will genuinely be independent of former supervisors.

Build in trips to other labs/institutions to learn specific skills or to use specific facilities if these are not available here - this kind of external collaboration is seen as a good thing, so long as it does not seem as if you've chosen the wrong host institution. Make sure you have the agreement of potential collaborators well before the deadline (and have letters of support and agreement from them).

NERC/BBSRC

NERC's Independent Research Fellowships and BBSRC's David Phillips Fellowships (both for 5 years) both provide excellent support, with generous provision for research expenses. They are highly competitive - NERC awards maybe 20 per year and BBSRC only 5, across all of their remit. They are awarded on the basis of the quality of the candidate and the quality of the proposed project - both need to be strong. [Note that NERC used to operate two separate Fellowship schemes - a 3 yr Postdoctoral and 5 yr Advanced Fellowship – but they have now combined them into the single scheme, similar to that offered by BBSRC]. NERC is more willing to take the candidate’s stage of career into account, so will consider applicants who have only recently completed their PhD, provided that they already have an excellent output  (maybe 6 papers in reasonably good journals, and first author on at least 3-4). More usually, successful applicants have already had 1-5 years of postdoctoral experience, and a publication list in proportion to that period of research. For a BBSRC David Phillips Fellowship you need to have had at least 3 yrs of postdoc experience, and successful applicants need to have maybe 10+ papers (8+ first author). But you can't rest on your laurels - you need an exciting project as well as a good CV!

Note that you don't need to worry about whether or not your project fits NERC's or BBSRC's priorities or whether it has any applied value - it will be judged entirely on the quality of its pure science. The current format for both schemes [check to see if this has changed] is that you have to write an extended section that describes your past and proposed research. Write the section on the proposed research as if it was a NERC or BBSRC grant application (see the separate advice on this), with an introductory paragraph that says why this is exciting, a short introduction that gives some (not much) background and leads up to the list of specific aims, and then a detailed section on methods for addressing each aim.

Note that Fellowships are costed in the same way as NERC  or BBSRC grants, so consult the advice on how to do this in the Research Grants - General Points and Research Grants - Specific Funders web pages. While you can't claim the salary of a postdoc 'helper', you can (and should, if appropriate) claim for technician support (as with a normal grant).

Royal Society URF/Dorothy Hodgkin

Chief difference compared to most fellowship applications is that there are no interviews of short-listed candidates, and very little space on the form in which to describe the project. So there's no space for details about methodology, nor background overviews - just concentrate on selling the novelty and interest of the project. The Royal Society like projects that sound 'big', so you need to be ambitious in your aims. This short description, plus the references and your publication list, is all that the committee has to go on, so all must be convincing. The committee put a lot of weight on references from well known and respected academics - definitely a case of 'it's who you know. . . '. If you had a big name as a PhD examiner and got on well with him/her then you could approach them to support your application. Again, check that they will write something very good about you.

The Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships have an additional criterion, in that candidates whose personal circumstances have hindered their ability to fire on all cylinders are given special treatment. The relevant section of the form should not just say 'I'd like to be flexible in my working times'  or 'I'd like to have children at the same time', but should something more concrete. The fact that women often move to be with their partner is recognised as a deterrent for women staying in science, so is relevant here (as is e.g. looking after elderly parents). However, in practice the committee tends to rank candidates on the usual scientific criteria first, and the 'special circumstances' end up being a secondary consideration. So candidates need a good CV, project and relevant host institution - but the special circs can help to swing it.

EU Marie Curie

The application format and method of assessment of these is very different from most other forms of fellowship - here a lot of emphasis is placed on the training element of the project (and hence both on the extent to which the applicant will gain new skills and the suitability of the host institution). All components of part B of the application are important in the assessment process (even the apparently minor issues such as how the project will be managed) - it's not sufficient to simply have an excellent candidate and project, and so you really need to pay attention to what the system wants. However, the good news is that guidance is given on the form as to what features are expected under each heading, and this applies as much to the assessors as to the applicants, and fixed numbers of points are allocated to each subheading. Therefore if you know what is required it can be relatively straightforward to acquire a reasonable score for many of the sections (and conversely it is impossible to get a good grade if you ignore them). Two assessors read each proposal, and a 3rd is only brought in if the two disagree - however, there are checks on the average marks allocated by different assessors, and the system is generally considered to be a fair and objective one. It is best if you use a previous successful application as a blueprint, since the assessors are looking for specific phrases/comments under each heading.

The component parts for most of the fellowship schemes are as follows:
Part A - Basic admin details of the project, host and candidate.
Part B Section 1 - This section describes the project, and then the candidate's CV. If these two are not rated highly enough, then the project is rejected without Section 2 being evaluated. So it is important that no important details of the project are only placed in Section 2, since reviewers may never see them.
Part B Section 2 - This covers the training element and the description of the host supervisor and institution, management of project, 'added value' of the project, contribution to career development etc. Ideally the candidate should be coming to Glasgow to learn new techniques and have new experiences - these techniques etc must really be played up, and it must be clear that we have the relevant facilities and have identified who will train them. It is best if there is evidence that the candidate will gain useful and complementary skills/knowledge, which will enhance their career prospects when they return to their home country (give the impression that they will do this, even if they are not so sure!). It is also desirable for the applicant to be in a position to 'transfer knowledge' back to their home country, so play up any evidence that the home country is currently lacking these skills. As for the description of the host supervisor and institution, these are extremely important - boast as much as possible, and give as much evidence as possible that host supervisors (and host department) have great experience in managing researchers, especially postdocs (especially those from abroad, incl. Marie Curie) - provide quantitative evidence of the number of postdocs currently in the department/research group, the number over the last 5 years etc etc. You can boast about the quality of the (relevant parts of the) department in general - not just the host supervisor - so you can mention every one else's superb publications etc as well as your own. A specimen generic version of this description of the host institution is given below (written for an ornithological project, so adapt as necessary). Give clear indicators for how the project will be managed (including detailed info on the timetable, milestones and all that kind of thing), also how the fellow will be managed/nurtured - regular meetings, details of mentoring, regular divisional seminars, awaydays, training courses in stats, Home Office, fieldwork safety, techniques etc.

Specimen description of host institution:

The University of Glasgow has one of the largest research bases in the UK, with an annual total income of £278 million, and a research income of £75 million, 5850 staff including over 3400 researchers, and 19,600 students including nearly 4000 postgraduate students. It is a member of the Russell Group of major UK research-led universities and is a founder member of Universitas 21, an international grouping of universities dedicated to setting world-wide standards for higher education.

The Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences (IBLS) was formed in 1994 as a new focus for excellence in research and teaching in the biomedical and life sciences of the University of Glasgow. It is one of the largest centres for biological research in Europe, with 140 academic staff, 200 contract researchers and 300 postgraduates. In 2005 IBLS was recognised as one of the top five institutions in the world for life science research by 'The Scientist' magazine, the world's leading life scientist magazine. It is home to the Graduate School of Biomedical and Life Sciences, which coordinates the training of about 300 postgraduate students, and is housed mostly on the central University Gilmorehill campus, close by other Science departments and the Main Library, and with a Field Station at Loch Lomond.

The 2009 National Student Survey returned a result of Glasgow University achieving an overall satisfaction rating of 90 per cent, which represents a 4 per cent improvement on the 2008 Survey. The last Enhancement-Led Institutional Review found that 'broad confidence' could be placed in the soundness of University's procedures, likely future management of the quality of its programmes, as well as the academic standards of our awards. 'Broad confidence' is the best possible judgement available to the Review Team. Within IBLS, the Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology hosts research groups with interests in Ecology and Environmental Biology, including a highly productive research group working on bird ecology. This 'Ornithology Group' is one of the largest research groups of ornithologists in the world, and includes 11 permanent academic staff (four full professors, a reader, a senior lecturer and five lecturers), two honorary professors, several research fellows and postdoctoral researchers, and about 35 postgraduate students. Within the Ornithology Group, seabird research is one primary focus, and the group has the largest ISI-indexed publication output on seabird ecology of any university in the world. This research includes studies on seabird ecology in Scotland, England, Norway, Iceland, Azores, Portugal, Cape Verde Islands, Brazil, Mexico and Antarctica, involving many international collaborations with scientists from around the world. We also have support for several collaborative projects funded by the EC. We have recently had two Marie Curie fellows working very successfully within our group, Dr Ana de Leon and Dr J.M. Arcos.

Recent relevant research outputs include:

The group will readily be able to host XXX as his/her research fits perfectly with our continuing research programme, and will provide XXX with excellent possibilities for research collaboration with experts in YYY. S/he will also have considerable opportunities to train in the techniques of ZZZ in an internationally excellent facility at the . . .

Back to top