7.4% MSCA odds, R&R advice & tomorrow's workshop

Welcome back. This week's newsletter is arriving on Tuesday rather than Monday because I was travelling to a monastery in Lower Austria to lead a week-long writing retreat. Thank you for your patience!

This week, a look at demand for European postdoctoral funding and some practical advice on a part of the revision process that can really trip people up: the response letter. If peer feedback is something you would like more support with, I'm also teaching a free workshop tomorrow.

01 · In the field: Record demand for MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships

The 2026 MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships call closed on 9 September with 21,627 proposals, up 26.7% from 17,066 in 2025, according to the European Commission's announcement. Its indicative budget of €399.05 million is expected to fund about 1,600 projects, with results due in mid-February 2027 (MSCA). This drops the success rate of any individual proposal to 7.4%, or 1 in 14 proposals. 

Those are application numbers and a funding estimate; so be cautious about turning that headline into a prediction about YOUR proposal.

Why this matters: Just because more people applied doesn't mean you will automatically have fewer chances. But as always, don't place all your bets on one horse. Identify other funding opportunities that genuinely fit your work and circumstances. If you need help with that, reply and schedule a consultation call with me, and I'll see how I can help you with your proposals and plans.

02 · On the craft: Make your R&R response letter easy to follow

Revising a paper can be difficult enough; explaining those revisions in a response letter can really trip people up. The advice I give my clients is to think of the letter as a clear account of how they have engaged with the feedback, not a defense of the original manuscript.

Start by keeping a separate working document that records how you address each reviewer comment. As you revise, note what you changed, where you changed it, and why. If you decide not to make a suggested change, record your reasoning too. These can be rough notes: you're documenting your decisions, not drafting the formal letter alongside the paper.

When you're ready to write the letter, that document becomes your starting point. Address every comment, including the ones you disagree with, and make each response easy to check: quote or paraphrase the comment, explain what you did, and point to the relevant passage in the revised manuscript.

For example: “We have added a paragraph connecting the theoretical framework to the interview material in the discussion section (p. 12, paragraph 2) that reviewer 2 requested.” That gives the reader something concrete to look for, rather than a vague assurance that you have “strengthened the discussion.”

You don't have to accept every suggestion. If adding another case would take the paper beyond its scope, explain that briefly and respectfully, and say whether you have clarified the scope in the manuscript. The aim is to show that you considered the suggestion, even where you reached a different conclusion.

Open the finished letter with a short thank-you and an overview of the main revisions. Aim for enough detail to make your decisions clear, rather than a particular page count.

Try this week

Create a working document with each reviewer comment and space to record your decision, the change made, and its location. Start with one comment: what would addressing it actually involve?

03 · Tomorrow: Free workshop on giving and receiving peer feedback

Tomorrow, Wednesday, 23 September, 13:00–14:30 CEST, I'm teaching a free online workshop: Giving and Receiving Peer Feedback with Clarity and Confidence.

We'll look at receiving criticism without being completely derailed by it, responding strategically to peer reviews, and giving feedback that is specific, useful, and constructive. We'll work with a practical template for turning reviewer comments into a revision plan and discuss boundaries when feedback becomes vague, overly harsh, or entangled in departmental politics.

You'll leave with a clearer process, reusable templates, and more confidence in approaching academic critique as part of scholarly life rather than a personal verdict. The workshop is organised by the research support office of mdw – University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna as part of Postdoc Appreciation Week Austria 2026.

If that sounds useful, I'd love to see you there. You can sign up here. 

Warmly,
Melanie