The Sêr Cymru II programme is a suite of projects part funded by the European Commission and is a part of the Chief Scientific Adviser for Wales, Professor Julie Williams’ strategy to increase research capacity in STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine) related subjects in Wales. The programme is also open to researchers working in relevant areas of applied social science (applied to the STEMM disciplines). The programme is designed to attract the highest calibre candidates from outside the United Kingdom to work in excellent research groups in Welsh Universities.
Through support from the Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) COFUND scheme via the
SIRCIW project or the Welsh European Funding Office (WEFO) under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) scheme, more than 150 new posts to work with stellar researchers in universities in Wales will be created.
Potentially up to three new fellowship posts are to be supported at Cardiff Metropolitan University, each supported through the
and commencing at any time from 1st April 2019 but no later than 1st September 2019.
Fellowships will be around 18 months in length and can involve collaboration with a relevant commercial partner.
1. Fellow’s CV and Track Record (max. 3 pages A4 in Arial, single spaced lines, no smaller than point size 11 with margins of at least 20mm at the sides and 10mm at the top and bottom), listing:
1.1 PhD Certificate date and/or number of years postdoctoral research experience
1.3 Important Publications and Citations (use appropriate discipline related index, excluding self-citations)
1.4 Highlight (*) which publications have been
without PhD supervisor
1.5 Invited Conference Presentations
1.6 Granted patents / Prizes / awards / professional memberships
1.7 Research grant awards / experience
1.8 Experience of leadership / mentoring staff – PhD students, PDRA etc.
2. Cardiff Met Academic's Combined Statement of Support and CV
2.1 CV – 1 page A4, highlighting the academic's specific experience in the field of the proposed project
2.2 Statement of Support – 1 page A4 which includes:
i. Cardiff Met supervisor's assessment of the quality of the candidates research experience and publications
ii. Strategic fit of the candidate within the department
iii. Confirmation that the academic has contacted the fellow's 2 referees (who know Fellow's work and proposed
research field) and confirmed his/her suitability for the fellowship.
3. Project Proposal (max. 3 pages A4)
3.1 Title of the project
3.2 Short Summary (½ page) of the proposed project in 'layperson's' terms.
3.3 1 page specialist case; including a brief description of (i) novel aspects of the project and (ii) expected contribution to
advancements in the project field
3.4 ½ page impact case and planned outputs
3.5 Statement – YES/NO of alignment with Science for Wales Grand Challenge areas -
(http://gov.wales/docs/det/publications/120306scienceen.pdf ) and Ser Cymru National Research Networks (if
NB Not an eligibility requirement
4. Evidence of support from Institute Director or nominee
(e.g. e-mail attachment specifying: fit of fellow's expertise with e.g. research/research groups, IRCs and other activities within the Dept./Institute and its/their Research Strategy; inter-disciplinary potential; capacity building/links with existing funding e.g. awarded grants and Welsh Government activities e.g. NRN etc.)
In liaison with the European projects Director EoI Checklist documents together in one pdf file using the naming protocol EoI [FellowSurname] [Supervisor Surname]
Applications will be assessed according to not only the excellence of the applicants, but also their research proposal and their strategic fit at both stages. The quality of the applicant and research proposal must be very high
Research Council United Kingdom
level and candidates should have an outstanding CV for their career stage.
Assessment Criteria section below
Expression of Interest (EoI)
- Pro VC Research
- Director of Research and Postgraduate Studies
- Deputy Director of Research and Postgraduate Studies
- Administrative support (RESEO)
1. Quality of the applicant (Royal Society / RCUK Fellowship level and outstanding CV for their career stage)
2. Quality, innovative aspects, and credibility of research idea (scheme evaluation criteria
3. Strategic fit within Department/Institute and to Supervisor's own research (including level of support from the
NB Quality of the applicant and the proposal will the scored separately using the table below. In the final scoring, the emphasis is on the candidate calibre and NOT the research proposal i.e. an excellent proposal cannot compensate for a poorer calibre CV.
Fellow (taking into account their career stage/time since PhD)||
The fellow's achievements are outstanding
and represent world-leading standards in terms of quality, significance and scientific impact. The applicant is on a clear trajectory to become a world-class research leader.
The proposed work is outstanding and
represents world-leading standards in terms of quality, significance and scientific impact
The fellow's achievements are excellent and represent world-class standards in terms of quality, significance and scientific impact. The applicant is likely to become a world-class research leader.
The proposed work is excellent and represents world-class standards in terms of quality, significance and scientific impact.
The fellow's achievements are very good, contain aspects of excellence, and represent high standards in terms of quality, significance and scientific impact. The applicant demonstrates potential to become a world- class research leader.
The proposed work is very good, contains aspects of excellence, and represents high standards in terms of quality, significance and scientific impact.
7||The fellow's achievements are of a good quality, internationally competitive, at the forefront of research and have a high level of scientific impact.||The proposed work is of a good quality, internationally competitive, at the forefront of UK research and has a high level of scientific impact.|
6||The fellow's achievements are of a good quality, on the borderline between nationally and internationally competitive, and have a good level of scientific impact.|
The proposed work is of a good quality, on the borderline between nationally and internationally competitive, and has a good level of scientific impact.
5||The fellow's achievements are of a good quality, have some scientific merit, but re not at the leading edge.|
The proposed work is of a good quality, has some scientific merit, but is not at the leading edge.
The fellow's achievements are of a good quality, have some scientific merit, but have a number of weaknesses.
The proposed work is of a good quality, has some scientific merit, but has a number of weaknesses.
3||The fellow's achievements are of a satisfactory quality.|
The proposed work is of a satisfactory quality. It would provide some new knowledge, but fails to provide reasonable evidence and justification for the proposal.
2||The fellow's achievements are weak in terms of quality, significance and scientific impact, and have only a few strengths.|
The proposed work is weak in terms of quality, significance and scientific impact, and has only a few strengths.
1||The fellow's achievements are of an unsatisfactory quality and are unlikely to have advanced the field.|
The proposed work is of an
unsatisfactory quality and is unlikely to
advance the field