Following the discussions under my previous MSCA video, I made another short video on a question that appeared repeatedly:

Why do technically strong MSCA proposals still get rejected?

The video discusses several recurring weaknesses observed in evaluation reports and reviewer comments, including:

• vague objectives,
• weak impact sections,
• poor implementation planning,
• generic host justification,
• and proposal readability.

One recurring point is that MSCA evaluation is often not only about the science itself, but also about the applicant’s potential for research independence, long-term impact, and fit within the European research ecosystem.

Interested to hear perspectives from others who applied for MSCA or similar European fellowships.

What do you think are the most underestimated reasons proposals fail?

I recently uploaded a detailed breakdown of how I won a Marie Curie MSCA grant with a SHERPA proposal scoring 94.20%.

In the video, I go through:
• The real Evaluation Summary Report
• What reviewers liked and criticized
• Excellence, Impact, and Implementation sections
• Common MSCA proposal mistakes
• Gantt charts, dissemination strategy, and knowledge transfer
• Practical proposal-writing tips from a real funded application

I also discuss how competitive MSCA calls are becoming and what applicants can do to improve their chances.

The project itself focuses on self-healing perovskite photovoltaics and micro-concentrator architectures beyond the Shockley–Queisser limit.

I hope this can help future applicants preparing MSCA or Horizon Europe proposals.

Would love to hear feedback from others who applied for MSCA or European grants.

The Shockley-Queisser limit is the ultimate ceiling for standard solar cells. To break it, we need to rethink how light enters the cell.

I just released a video summarizing my research from the SHERPA Project. It’s a deep dive into using laser micro-engineering to create high-efficiency solar surfaces. We compare traditional 2D printing vs. Laser precision and look at the environmental impact of these fabrication methods.

If you are interested in the next generation of PV technology beyond Silicon, check it out. Happy to answer any questions about the laser-patterning process!

Efficiency isn't everything if the cell turns yellow in 14 days. I put together a video comparing Silicon vs. Perovskite stability.

Most people blame the environment (moisture/UV), but internal factors like Ion Migration are just as deadly. I also touched on 'Self-healing' layers that mimic human skin to extend lifetime.

Is stability the only thing keeping Perovskites from taking over the market, or is the lead toxicity a bigger hurdle for you guys?

>