The Marie Curie Fellowship: A Complete MSCA Postdoctoral Application Strategy

The 2025 call for Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellowships received 17,058 applications—the highest number for any funding action in the 40-year history of EU research programmes. With roughly 1,650 projects expected to be funded, success rates have dropped below 10% for the first time. These numbers might seem discouraging, but they reveal something important: the Marie Curie fellowship remains the most desirable individual postdoc fellowship for mobile researchers worldwide.

What makes applicants queue up for odds this brutal? The answer lies in what the Marie Curie fellowship actually offers. Unlike research grants that fund projects, the MSCA invests directly in you—your mobility, your training, your long-term career trajectory. The typical award ranges from €200,000 to €300,000 over two to three years, with monthly living allowances approaching €7,000 in high-cost countries. Perhaps more importantly, this postdoc fellowship comes with a genuine employment contract, social security coverage, and structured career development that few postdoctoral positions can match.

But here's the catch that confuses nearly everyone who applies: the MSCA-PF operates on fundamentally different logic than other major grants. The ERC funds frontier research. National postdoc schemes prioritize scientific excellence. The Marie Curie fellowship, by contrast, centers on researcher development through international mobility. If you treat this as simply a Horizon Europe research proposal with a mobility requirement bolted on, you'll score lower than applicants who genuinely embrace the training and career development dimensions.

Two Marie Curie Fellowship Types: European vs. Global

Before anything else, you need to understand which Marie Curie fellowship type applies to you. The distinction isn't merely administrative—it shapes your entire application strategy.

European Fellowships (EF) fund 12-24 months of research at a host institution in an EU Member State or Horizon Europe Associated Country. The critical point: researchers of any nationality can apply. A researcher from Brazil, Japan, or Australia can propose a European Fellowship at a German university with no restrictions. Of the 2025 applications, 15,820 were for European Fellowships—approximately 93% of the total.

Global Fellowships (GF) offer something different: an outgoing phase of 12-24 months at a host in a third country (the United States, Canada, Australia, and Japan are popular destinations) followed by a mandatory 12-month return phase to Europe. This return phase is non-negotiable. The total duration runs 24-36 months. But here's the restriction that catches many applicants: Global Fellowships are only open to EU/Associated Country nationals or those who have lived in Europe for at least five consecutive years. Only 1,238 proposals went for Global Fellowships in 2025.

The Marie Curie Fellowship Mobility Requirement: Getting It Exactly Right

The mobility rule is the single most misunderstood eligibility criterion for the Marie Curie fellowship—and failing it means automatic rejection regardless of how brilliant your science might be. Let me state it clearly: you must not have resided or carried out your main activity in the country of the host institution for more than 12 months in the 36 months immediately preceding the call deadline.

Read that again. The 36-month window is calculated backward from the exact deadline date, not from your planned fellowship start. For a September 2025 deadline, the reference period spans September 2022 to September 2025. Any time spent working, studying, or residing in the host country during this window counts toward the 12-month limit. The count is cumulative—six separate two-month visits equal twelve months of residence just as surely as continuous living there would.

What doesn't count toward your 12-month limit? Short vacation visits, conference attendance, brief research visits supervised by your home institution, compulsory national or military service, and time spent in refugee status procedures. But be precise about these exceptions—"brief research visits" means visits where your home institution remained your main employer, not extended secondments.

For Global Fellowships, the mobility rule applies to the third-country host of the outgoing phase, not to the European beneficiary hosting your return. If you want to spend your outgoing phase in the United States, you must not have resided there for more than 12 months in the preceding 36 months. Your relationship with the European return host follows different rules entirely.

What the Funding Actually Covers

Unlike grants that reimburse actual costs with extensive receipts and justifications, the MSCA postdoc fellowship operates on unit costs—standardized monthly rates that simplify administration dramatically. You'll be an employee of the host institution under a full employment contract, not a grant recipient managing their own budget.

For a typical 24-month European Fellowship with the family allowance, total funding approaches €220,000. Global Fellowships, given their longer duration, can exceed €275,000. The recent Work Programme revisions increased allowances by approximately 18%, making the Marie Curie fellowship more financially competitive than it's ever been.

The Three-Way Relationship: Researcher, Host, Commission

Understanding the structural relationships clarifies both your application strategy and what fellowship implementation actually looks like. The European Commission (through the Research Executive Agency) provides funding to the host institution, which becomes the legal beneficiary. The host institution then employs you for the fellowship duration under a full employment contract with social security coverage.

This means you're not a grantee receiving funding directly but rather an employee of the host institution. Local labor laws apply. You enjoy the same rights as other institutional employees—access to facilities, health insurance, pension contributions, and the protections of whatever national employment framework governs your host country. Your supervisor guides day-to-day research while also co-developing your Career Development Plan, a mandatory deliverable within six months of project start. If you're evaluating different postdoctoral opportunities, understanding these employment structures is crucial.

The concept of two-way knowledge transfer is central and often underappreciated. Evaluators specifically assess what you will gain from the host (new techniques, access to facilities, network expansion) AND what you will contribute to the host environment (unique expertise, methodological innovations, international connections). Proposals that only describe benefits flowing to the researcher score poorly. This isn't rhetoric—it directly shapes how panels rank applications.

Secondments: Strategic Value or Administrative Burden?

Secondments are temporary stays at another organization—anywhere in the world, in any sector—during your fellowship to gain specific skills or access specialized equipment unavailable at your main host. For European Fellowships, secondments may total up to one-third of fellowship duration. The question isn't whether secondments are allowed, but whether including them actually strengthens your proposal.

The honest answer: it depends entirely on how well you justify them. A secondment to a partner lab with unique equipment you genuinely need? That demonstrates strategic planning. A secondment added because you heard they "look good" on applications? Evaluators see through this immediately, and vague justifications for why you need to spend three months somewhere else raise red flags about your primary work plan.

For Global Fellowships, secondments occur only during the outgoing phase—no secondments are permitted during the mandatory return phase. This restriction isn't arbitrary; the return phase is designed specifically for knowledge transfer back to Europe, and splitting it with visits elsewhere would undermine that purpose.

The Marie Curie Fellowship Evaluation Criteria: What Actually Determines Your Score

Marie Curie fellowship proposals are scored on three weighted criteria. Each is assessed on a 0-5 scale with half-point increments. Every criterion has a threshold of 3 out of 5—failing any single criterion means rejection. But with typical cut-off scores of 90-95%, merely passing thresholds gets you nowhere near funding.

Marie Curie Fellowship Success Rates: What the Data Actually Shows

Historical success rates provide essential strategic context. The 2025 call's 64.6% application surge dramatically shifted the competitive landscape. Here's how the numbers have evolved:

The 2025 surge deserves attention. Around 50% of applications now come from researchers currently based outside the EU—a significant shift reflecting the programme's growing global appeal and, perhaps, researchers looking for European mobility pathways in an uncertain geopolitical climate. The United Kingdom (21% of coordinating organizations), Spain (11.5%), Italy (9.5%), France (8.6%), and Germany (7.75%) lead in hosting applications.

For Global Fellowships, destination preferences cluster heavily: the United States draws 47.8% of outgoing phase applications, followed by Canada (14.5%), Australia (9.4%), Japan (5.1%), and Brazil (4.4%). If you're proposing a Global Fellowship to the US, you're competing in the most crowded pool.

Choosing Your Host Institution Strategically

Host institution selection influences both your proposal's competitiveness and your fellowship experience. Several factors merit consideration—but perhaps not the ones you'd assume.

Research complementarity matters more than prestige. Evaluators explicitly assess two-way knowledge transfer. Proposing to join a group already expert in your exact methods suggests you have nothing to contribute. Seek hosts with complementary rather than overlapping expertise. The question isn't "Is this a famous lab?" but "What can I learn here that I couldn't learn elsewhere, and what unique perspective do I bring?"

Supervisor track record in mentoring and EU funding affects perceived feasibility. Supervisors with previous MSCA or ERC experience understand what evaluators expect. Their publication record should demonstrate expertise relevant to—but not identical to—your proposed project.

Institutional support infrastructure significantly impacts proposal quality. Universities with dedicated MSCA support offices—common in UK, Dutch, and German research universities—provide proposal reviews, administrative guidance, and training on submission procedures. Some institutions impose internal deadlines weeks before the EU deadline to ensure quality review. If you're building your postdoctoral funding pipeline, institutional support can make a measurable difference.

Finding and Approaching Potential Marie Curie Fellowship Supervisors

Initial contact should occur 6-9 months before the deadline at minimum; 9-12 months provides more comfortable preparation time. Cold emails work, but they work better when you've done your homework. For guidance on finding the right MSCA supervisor match, strategic outreach is essential.

The EURAXESS Portal publishes hosting offers—institutions actively seeking MSCA fellows in specific research areas. The CORDIS database reveals past MSCA-funded projects, exposing which research groups and supervisors have successfully hosted fellows before. University alliance databases (CIVIS, SEA-EU, and others) maintain searchable supervisor databases specifically for mobility programmes.

The ideal scenario involves visiting the host institution before application—even briefly—to establish the research relationship and demonstrate genuine commitment. Video calls work as alternatives, but in-person visits signal seriousness in ways that digital communication cannot replicate.

Marie Curie Fellowship Writing Strategies That Score High

The proposal consists of Part A (administrative forms completed online) and Part B (technical proposal as PDF upload). Part B1, your core scientific and strategic document, has a strict 10-page limit—any content beyond page 10 becomes invisible to evaluators. This isn't a suggestion; it's enforcement.

Open with impact. Evaluators read many proposals—begin with a compelling statement of what's new, why it matters, and why you're the right person to do it. Don't bury the significance on page 3. The first paragraph should make a reader want to continue.

Define 3-5 clear, measurable objectives. Each objective should link explicitly to a work package and be verifiable through concrete outputs. Vague objectives like "explore the relationship between X and Y" score poorly; measurable objectives like "develop and validate a novel method for X, benchmarking against current approaches Y and Z" demonstrate clarity. If you've struggled with the balance between ambition and specificity, our guide to the transition from H2020 to Horizon Europe covers how evaluation expectations have evolved.

Be specific about training activities. Generic statements about "acquiring new skills" fail. Specify which techniques you'll learn, from whom, through what training activities (courses, workshops, mentoring sessions), and when in the project timeline these occur. The Career Development Plan is evaluated seriously—treat it seriously.

Common Proposal Pitfalls to Avoid

Timeline: From First Contact to Marie Curie Fellowship Start

MSCA-PF follows an annual call cycle, typically opening in April-May and closing in September. Evaluation takes approximately five months, with results announced in February of the following year. Grant agreement preparation requires roughly three more months, with project starts permitted within 12 months of grant agreement signature.

Many institutions impose internal deadlines 1-3 weeks before the EU deadline to ensure administrative review. Check with your prospective host early—their internal processes may constrain your timeline more than the official deadline does.

After Submission: What Happens Next

After the deadline, the Research Executive Agency conducts eligibility checks. Eligible proposals receive evaluation by at least three independent experts who first prepare individual reports, then reach consensus through panel discussion. Proposals are ranked by total weighted score within each of the eight disciplinary panels (CHE, ECO, ENG, ENV, LIF, MAT, PHY, SOC).

Regardless of outcome, you'll receive an Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) providing feedback on each criterion. For many applicants, this feedback proves invaluable for future applications—whether resubmitting to MSCA or adapting the proposal for other funding schemes.

Proposals scoring 85% or above but unfunded due to budget constraints receive the Seal of Excellence—a recognition that some institutions and national funding bodies use to offer alternative funding. Additionally, the ERA Fellowships call may fund high-scoring European Fellowship proposals with hosts in "widening countries" (those with historically low Horizon Europe participation rates) that just missed the MSCA cut-off.

Essential Marie Curie Fellowship Resources

Several official sources provide authoritative guidance that you should consult directly:

• MSCA Official Website — Programme overview, eligibility information, success stories
• Funding & Tenders Portal — Call documents, proposal templates, Work Programme, evaluation forms, Model Grant Agreement
• REA How to Apply Guide — Self-assessment tool for experience calculation, common mistakes document
• EURAXESS — Job portal, hosting offers from institutions, relocation guidance
• Marie Curie Alumni Association — Network of current and former fellows offering peer support and mentoring

National Contact Points (NCPs) offer free, personalized support in local languages. Services vary by country but typically include eligibility verification, extension documentation guidance, proposal review before submission, and sometimes interview training for Step 2 processes. Find your country's NCP through the Horizon Europe NCP Portal.

The Bottom Line on the Marie Curie Fellowship

The Marie Curie fellowship isn't just a research grant with mobility requirements—it's a career development postdoc fellowship that happens to fund research. This distinction shapes everything about how successful proposals are written and evaluated. Winning applications demonstrate not only scientific excellence but genuine enthusiasm for professional growth, clear articulation of two-way knowledge transfer, and concrete plans for acquiring skills that extend beyond the immediate research project.

With success rates dipping below 10%, small differences matter enormously. Proposals that merely pass criteria lose to those that excel across all dimensions. The most successful applicants invest months in preparation, build genuine relationships with prospective supervisors, leverage institutional support structures, and revise their proposals through multiple feedback cycles. If you secure funding, the post-award transition brings its own challenges—but that's a problem most applicants would be grateful to have.

The Marie Curie fellowship exists to help talented researchers build international careers through mobility and structured development. If you meet the eligibility criteria, understand the evaluation logic, and can articulate genuine mutual benefit between yourself and a host institution—you belong in the applicant pool, whatever the odds might suggest.