The ERC-2026-CoG call, opened on 25 September 2025 and closing on 13 January 2026, once again brings to the forefront one of the most competitive and prestigious funding schemes in the European research landscape. The ERC Consolidator Grants, promoted by the European Research Council (ERC), support cutting-edge scientific projects led by mid-career researchers capable of opening new frontiers in their fields and leading independent teams.
Beyond the financial support, an ERC represents international recognition of the excellence, creativity, and vision of those who obtain it. As Pablo Boix, researcher at the Instituto de Tecnología Química (ITQ, UPV-CSIC), puts it, receiving a Consolidator Grant is “like getting a seal of approval” – a confirmation of excellence that extends beyond the lab, bringing visibility, leadership, and new opportunities.
His story is also one of perseverance, strategic thinking, and continuous learning: three elements that define both the ERC evaluation process and the specialised support Kveloce provides to researchers preparing for such highly competitive calls.
Learning from Different Perspectives
For this application, Boix participated in various training activities, including Kveloce’s mock interview designed to help researchers prepare for their ERC panel defence.
“I contacted Kveloce when my proposal had already passed to Step 2,” he explains. “So I didn’t get feedback during the writing phase.” Later in the interview, he emphasises this point, noting that having support from the writing phase would have been even more valuable.
He had also taken part in other training sessions, which allowed him to compare different approaches: “In the end, you keep hearing the same things, because the core concepts don’t change – just seen from different perspectives. But in every explanation, there’s always something that clicks, something you realise you can use in your own project.” That combination of views, he adds, “helped me develop my own vision.”
The Value of a Non-Expert Panel
The mock session with Kveloce simulated the real interview process, using a panel that was not specialised in his research area. “One thing I initially missed – though I later saw it differently – was getting more technical feedback. But I understand that’s not the role you’re supposed to play… most panel members aren’t experts in your field either.” Over time, he came to see this as an advantage: “I understand it better now. For more technical input, I had plenty of colleagues. That’s different.”
During the session, he received feedback on tone and emphasis: “They pointed out areas where I needed to emphasise more, or different ways to say the same thing to avoid potential issues.” He also applied one of the team’s key suggestions: “I made sure to start with impact. On my title slide, I tried to say something striking, without being too dramatic.”
Identifying Weak (and Strong) Points
Reflecting on the process, Boix says it was crucial to address possible weak points in the project: “One recommendation I would give is to try to identify any potential weaknesses. And that’s something you really emphasised, both from a technical and an implementation point of view.”
During the conversation, he explains that criticism can come from different angles: doubts about implementation often come from the panel, while technical aspects are more likely to be raised by external reviewers. One piece of advice that helped him most: “You have to convince the panel that you’re answering what a third party is asking. That triangle can be tricky, but it has to be convincing.”
His proposal, focused on self-repairing solar cells, had a clear advantage: “The main benefit in my case was the repairable solar cells. They create less waste and last longer. I think that was quite important.” He adds: “One strength of my proposal is that the impact is very clear. The scientific part was detailed enough to justify that this could realistically be done.”
What Comes After Success?
When asked about the impact of securing the ERC, Boix responds with humour: “It’s going to make my life hell, but I already knew that.” He clarifies: “Luckily, I wasn’t doing badly in terms of funding, but in terms of visibility, it changes everything. A lot of people treat you differently. For better or worse, an ERC isn’t treated like just another project – it’s a seal of approval, almost like an award. Since that’s the case, I’m definitely going to try to make the most of it.”
He insists that the change has been immediate: “Suddenly, a lot more people invite you to write perspectives, to contribute to different things. It gives you a lot of visibility.”
From Practice to Panel: The Importance of the Mock
When asked whether he would recommend specialised support to other researchers preparing an ERC proposal, Boix doesn’t hesitate: “Yes, yes, yes – and I already have. I’d even recommend starting from the writing phase, unless you’re very confident. The feedback you can give at the interview stage is more limited, because everything is already set.”
He acknowledges that the interview training is useful, but has less room for improvement than the writing phase: “The interview is more about delivery,” he explains. “But helping to strengthen certain sections or shape the message differently – that can be really useful.”
Still, he stresses the importance of preparing for the final round: “The questions are key. You can have a question bank, but they can always surprise you.”
His reflection summarises his experience well: preparing for an ERC isn’t just about mastering the science, it’s about communicating it clearly and convincingly – even to people outside your field.
