Securing funding from the European Research Council (ERC) is rarely the result of a single attempt. In most cases, it is the outcome of a journey marked by resilience, perseverance and strategic decision-making.
Researcher Sara Abalde-Cela, specialising in nanotechnology and biotechnology, and currently Principal Investigator in the Medical Devices group at the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL), knows this well. After several attempts — a Starting Grant that reached the interview stage, a Consolidator Grant submitted at a relatively early point in her career, and the coordination of a funded EIC Pathfinder project (3DSECRET) — her objective remained clear: to lead her own research group and consolidate her scientific independence.
In 2024, she decided to strengthen her ERC application, supported by the host institution Ciqus (University of Santiago de Compostela), through a specialised strategic review, entrusting Kveloce with helping her take the final qualitative leap. The result: a funded ERC Consolidator Grant.
Beyond the final success, however, what is truly interesting is understanding what made the difference.
Far More Than a Technical Review
Throughout her career, Sara had worked with different consultancies for ERC and EIC calls, with varied experiences in terms of depth, approach and results. When she describes the review carried out with Kveloce, she does so with first-hand knowledge. Her conclusion is clear: it was a substantially different experience.
This was not a superficial review or a set of written comments on the document. Nor was it a simple stylistic adjustment or formal correction. The process was conceived as an immersive strategic session, aimed at analysing the proposal through the evaluative lens of the ERC and intervening precisely where funding decisions are truly shaped.
The discussion focused on structural and positioning issues:
- The conceptual architecture of Part B1 and its capacity to engage the panel from the very first pages.
- The balance between scientific ambition and methodological feasibility.
- The clarity and strength of the message in the key sections.
- The strategic positioning of the CV as evidence of leadership and scientific independence.
As Sara highlights, one of the greatest challenges in an ERC proposal is finding the exact balance between a genuinely breakthrough project — ambitious, transformative, capable of redefining a field — and, at the same time, credible and deliverable within the proposed timeframe and resources. If a proposal is too ambitious, it may be perceived as unrealistic; if it is too cautious, it may appear incremental and insufficiently transformative.
Achieving this balance is not a matter of wording, but of strategy. That was precisely where the review concentrated: refining the message, reorganising priorities and strengthening overall coherence so that the scientific ambition was perceived clearly and credibly.
Strengthening What Panels Actually Evaluate
In Sara’s case, the strategic work focused on two elements that are decisive in ERC evaluations.
The CV narrative was one of them. Her track record already included leadership in European projects, team coordination and innovation experience. However, the objective was not to add achievements, but to present them in a way that clearly reflected the scientific leadership profile expected by the ERC. The review helped reorganise and reinforce this narrative, highlighting competitive funding secured, progressive independence and the capacity to lead original research lines. In ERC evaluations, having a strong CV is not enough; it is essential to demonstrate readiness to lead frontier research autonomously.
The second key aspect was the structure of objectives and methodology. The proposal was solid and carefully developed, but required fine-tuning in the formulation of objectives, the clarity of the conceptual leap beyond the state of the art, and the explicit demonstration of feasibility. Reordering priorities, sharpening the message and reinforcing internal coherence enabled the scientific ambition to emerge with greater clarity and credibility.
Strategic Decisions That Also Matter
Beyond the written proposal, another decisive factor was the choice of ERC panel. For proposals situated at the interface between disciplines — as in Sara’s case — this decision can fundamentally shape the evaluation outcome. It is not merely about thematic fit, but about anticipating how the proposal will be read, what expectations the panel will have, and which other applications it will compete against.
The discussion was far from superficial. Previous evaluation reports were revisited, feedback from earlier submissions was analysed, and the scientific positioning of the project across possible panels was carefully considered. It was a strategic conversation grounded in experience and judgement.
Here, a distinctive element emerged: the Kveloce team did not simply present options; they took a position. A clear recommendation was made, supported by argument and experience. Taking responsibility in such decisions is not common practice, yet it is precisely this level of engagement that adds value in calls of this calibre.
The choice was coherent. And it worked.
This type of support — going beyond document review into strategic positioning — is part of what transforms a good proposal into a truly competitive application.
The Impact of ERC on a Research Career
The award of the ERC Consolidator Grant marked a professional turning point for Sara. Beyond the funding itself, the grant definitively consolidated her position as an independent group leader, strengthening her scientific autonomy and her capacity to define and lead her own research lines.
The impact has also translated into increased international visibility. Invitations to conferences as keynote and plenary speaker, interest from other research centres, and new collaboration opportunities are direct consequences of this recognition. The ERC does not merely fund projects; it legitimises leadership.
It has also provided something particularly valuable in a research career: the ability to choose. Choosing the institution, scientific environment and team with which to grow professionally is a tangible expression of independence. Sara will be joining the research center Ciqus (University of Santiago de Compostela) though the talent attraction programme Oportunius from Xunta de Galicia as an Oportunius Research Professor.
As she succinctly puts it: “There is no programme like this for achieving real scientific independence.”
When Excellence Becomes Strategy
When asked whether she would recommend specialised support in preparing an ERC proposal, Sara’s answer was straightforward: yes, without hesitation.
Even researchers with extensive international experience and established track records may struggle to translate their scientific excellence into a narrative that is genuinely competitive for the ERC. An external, strategic and expert perspective helps identify blind spots, reinforce strengths and guide decisions that can be decisive in such a demanding process. In her own words, the strategic session was “key” to the final outcome.
In calls where success rates rarely exceed 10–15%, scientific quality is a necessary condition — but not a sufficient one. The difference often lies in strategy: in the narrative architecture of the proposal, the positioning of leadership, the balance between ambition and feasibility, the appropriate choice of panel, and the conceptual clarity of the opening pages.
Transforming a strong idea into a funded proposal requires a deep understanding of how the ERC evaluates and what panels truly expect.
At Kveloce, we have delivered over 400 ERC-related services and supported more than 60 funded projects. Each application is unique, but the principle remains the same: transforming scientific excellence into a strategically robust and highly competitive proposal.
