The European Research Council (ERC) has introduced relevant changes in the 2026 Work Programme that directly affect proposal preparation. Following the closure of the Starting and Consolidator Grant calls, the Advanced Grant 2026 is the next individual scheme with an upcoming deadline, closing on 27 August 2026. Researchers currently preparing their Advanced Grant proposals should be aware of these structural changes in order to adapt their writing strategy.
After the closure of the Starting and Consolidator calls, the Advanced Grant 2026 — with a deadline of 27 August — becomes the next major milestone for the research community. And it does so with a key novelty: a substantial revision in the structure and logic of proposals.
For those already preparing their applications, these changes are not merely formal. They require a strategic adaptation in how the scientific proposal is built and presented.
A new logic: conceptual clarity first, detail later
The ERC has redesigned the traditional proposal structure, organising the content into two clearly differentiated sections:
- Part I: should present the state of the art and the scientific questions to be addressed, the objectives, and the overall research strategy or approach.
- Part II: focused on implementation, methodology and project feasibility.
Beyond terminology, this change reflects a clear evaluation logic: enabling an initial assessment based on the conceptual strength and groundbreaking nature of the idea, before moving on to methodological detail.
In practice, this further reinforces the importance of the scientific narrative in the first pages.
Part I: five pages to convince
The new Part I — with a limit of five pages — becomes the decisive element in the first stage of evaluation.
It is not enough to describe the project. A compelling narrative must be built, positioning the research within its context, clearly defining its objectives, and above all demonstrating its capacity to advance the frontier of knowledge.
Panels will assess whether the proposal:
- addresses a relevant question in the field
- presents an original and creative idea
- has the potential to transform the current state of knowledge
In this sense, Part I must be self-contained, clear and strategic. A proposal that fails to convince at this stage will not progress, regardless of the quality of the subsequent methodological development.
Part II: depth without redundancy
Part II, with a maximum of seven pages, focuses on project implementation: methodology, work plan, risks, resources and feasibility.
Its role is not to repeat what has already been presented, but to provide credibility and robustness to the idea outlined in Part I.
This implies an important shift in writing: less repetition and more precision. Each element must contribute to demonstrating that the project is not only ambitious, but also feasible.
Excellence as the main criterion… but more demanding than ever
The ERC maintains its core principle: scientific excellence as the sole evaluation criterion. However, the way this excellence is assessed is structured in two phases with different emphases.
In Phase 1, the focus is on the quality of the idea: its relevance, ambition and transformative potential.
In Phase 2, additional elements related to implementation are considered: the appropriateness of the methodology, the coherence of the work plan and the justification of resources.
At the same time, the profile of the Principal Investigator remains crucial, with evaluation of their track record, creative thinking capacity and ability to successfully lead the project.
Key implications: less space, more strategy
Beyond formal changes, the new structure has direct implications for proposal preparation:
The first is the need to clearly differentiate content between both sections. Part I must stand on its own, while Part II should add depth without redundancy.
The second is space optimisation. With strict limits, every paragraph must be justified. It is not about writing more, but about selecting better.
The third is adapting to different audiences. Part I will be read by more generalist evaluators, while Part II will be assessed with a higher level of specialisation.
Above all, one key aspect is reinforced in ERC: the need to clearly articulate the transformative potential of the research, avoiding incremental approaches.
Preparing an ERC in 2026: a strategic exercise
With the August deadline approaching, researchers have a few months to adapt their proposals to this new logic.
But beyond reorganising content, the real challenge is to rethink how the scientific narrative is constructed. In ERC, the difference lies not only in the idea, but in how it is presented, positioned and defended against other excellent proposals.
In this context, specialised support can make a difference. At Kveloce, we work with researchers on ERC proposal preparation from a strategic perspective that goes beyond technical review.
The process begins with analysing the project idea and its fit within the programme, identifying strengths and areas for improvement. This is complemented by work on the CV and track record of the Principal Investigator, strengthening their positioning as a scientific leader.
From early stages to final revisions, the goal is to build strong, coherent proposals capable of meeting evaluation expectations in one of the most demanding programmes in the European ecosystem.
Because in ERC, excellence is only the starting point. The difference lies in how it is built.
