Obtaining funding from the European Research Council (ERC) is, for many researchers, a turning point. Not only because of the funding itself, but also because of what it represents in terms of independence, stability and scientific projection. With the next Advanced Grant call expected to open on 28 May, interest in this type of funding is once again in the spotlight. But behind every funded proposal there is a less visible process, where strategy matters just as much as excellence.
In this context, the recent award of an ERC Consolidator Grant 2025 to Beatriz Seoane Bartolomé, professor in the Department of Theoretical Physics at the Complutense University of Madrid, clearly illustrates what this type of recognition means. Consolidator Grants, aimed at researchers with between 7 and 12 years of experience, provide up to €2 million over five years and are among the most competitive grants in Europe.
The project she will develop, Beyond Maximum Entropy: A new paradigm for Modeling, Inference, and Learning Efficiency (BeME), is part of the emerging field of neural network physics and proposes a new approach to modelling and understanding complex systems. But beyond the scientific content, her experience helps to better understand what lies behind a successful ERC proposal.
In this case, the challenge was not so much the idea itself, which was already strong, but the way the proposal was constructed. ERC requirements go beyond simply describing a project: it needs to be positioned, ambitious and, above all, credible. And that is not always easy. In fact, one of the main difficulties relates to the language itself: conveying the transformative nature of the research. “The biggest barrier is writing it in such a grandiose way,” she admits.
It is precisely at this point that external support becomes valuable. In her case, the strategic review carried out by Kveloce brought a significant change to the proposal, not so much in the scientific content as in its structure and presentation. As she explains, the document “changed a lot” after the review, incorporating a clearer logic and differentiating the key elements more effectively.
Beyond specific adjustments, what really mattered was the shift in approach: a different way of building the narrative, more direct and better aligned with what evaluation panels are looking for. “Their way of presenting it was clearly much more convincing than the way I had written it,” she summarises, highlighting one of the most decisive aspects in ERC proposals: how excellence is communicated.
In addition, the review process helped her address elements that often generate uncertainty, such as structuring content or presenting risks — aspects that, in her words, “researchers do not really know how to write properly”.
The work did not stop with the written proposal. Preparation also included a mock interview, a key stage in ERC. Although its usefulness was more limited compared to the review — especially because of the difficulty of reproducing the level of specialisation of a real panel — it still allowed her to rehearse the presentation and work on formal aspects of communication.
Interview preparation was also part of the process. These mock sessions help researchers work on key aspects such as clarity of presentation, synthesis skills and confidence when defending the project before evaluators, bringing them closer to real evaluation conditions and allowing them to anticipate possible panel questions. In her case, it helped rehearse the narrative, identify possible weaknesses and gain confidence during one of the most demanding stages of the ERC process.
In any case, beyond the interview itself, the real weight of the ERC process still lies in the preparatory work. It is during the construction of the proposal that a candidature either succeeds or fails to stand out in a highly competitive environment, where scientific excellence is taken for granted and the real difference lies in how it is articulated.
The impact of the ERC can also be felt even before the project begins. In her case, receiving the grant has already led to an immediate change in her position within the scientific system, bringing new professional opportunities she did not expect. “Being offered positions in several places… I wasn’t expecting that,” she explains.
Her experience leads to a clear conclusion: in calls such as the ERC, the difference does not lie only in the quality of the research, but in the ability to turn it into a strong, clear and well-positioned proposal. And in that process, having an external perspective can be decisive. As she herself recognises, “you need someone external to tell you how to write that.”
