New ERC eligibility constraints, meritocracy, and research funding in EU
** In 2026–2027, the European Research Council (ERC) introduced changes to Starting Grant and Consolidator Grant eligibility windows, proposal evaluation stages, and resubmission restrictions. This text discusses what those changes may mean for fairness and scientific development, originally posted on LinkedIn with corresponding length constraints.
Coming back from a hectic week at CHI was marked by the new hostile and in a sense, retroactively applied eligibility constraints by the European Research Council (ERC), forcing reflection on a few issues.
- A special academic subtype of what Sandel called the tyranny of meritocracy. On the surface, in academia there is an assumption of merit as the leading criteria, but it is a fickly thing. When it comes to ERC, ‘merit’ depends on the panel for an interdisciplinary project and profile, whether you are good at representing the idea in the B1 only, and then, and only then, whether the idea and its elaboration is meritorious, whatever that may mean in the moment for the selected reviewers.
Yes, there is merit, but there are also academic tribes, undue emphasis on effective presentation, and simple human lottery. While there is no easy solution, ‘excellence only’ as a mantra is a lovely myth, and all these issues need to be recognised and reckoned with in some way. I am yet to see any discussion from the ERC about them.
- The ERC rating system fuels the Matthew effect rather than promoting ‘merit’. Despite requiring significant resources for the full proposal from the get-go, only the first part is assessed by the panel, AND the first part is assessed only by the panel. This means no in-depth experts may be involved in punitive B and C grades at this stage. At the same time, those moving to stage 2 and subsequently receiving a rejection may receive a grade B, but not C. In practice, getting through stage one puts the applicant in an advantageous position even if part B2, which is focused on the execution rather than the ‘pitch’ alongside the CV, is preposterous.
- The feedback or lack thereof does not support scientific development. We have all received very different feedback at different times on the same or similar project. Such inconsistencies are in line with assessing what should be state-of-the-art, which makes the punitive measures even more nonsensical. The move further pushes us to turn to other funders, which often do not provide any feedback whatsoever. ERC does not encourage nor provides scaffolding for smaller funders to provide even a multiple-choice checkbox on reasons for rejection, ultimately not supporting scientific development but only acts as a (harsh) final judge.
Finally, announcing the new punitive rules some months before the deadline, when significant resources have already been dedicated to crafting the proposal for this round, damages other outputs and applicants’ opportunities, and consequently, chances in the next eligible round.
We are all aware that the number of manuscripts and applications of all sorts, and in particular with LLMs in the past few years, has been unsustainable for the entire community in many ways. However, there are simpler things to reflect on and improve than taking, quite literally, the easiest way out.
Is this really where we want EU academia to go?
