I was shocked to learn, while hearing from the evaluation of a colleague’s proposal in Portugal (CEEC,FCT), that one of the criticisms raised was the “limited internationalization” in his curriculum. Too often, research calls penalize those who cannot spend long months abroad. This is especially harsh for researchers with families, who cannot simply “pause life” for international mobility. By making international stays a requirement, we send the message that a scientist must give up the right to a private life and to building a family in order to succeed. This is not only unfair — it’s harmful. Talent, creativity, and dedication to science should never be measured by how many months one can live abroad. These indicators should never have been included, and they must not return in future calls. Science thrives when researchers can have full lives, not when they are forced to sacrifice them.
A similar comment do for my application in Spain. Near 5 years outside Spain, ok, mainly in Portugal, but no enough internacionalization. Or when they penalize don't enough leadership and your supervisor or institution doesn't allow you to apply for projects.
Adding in the long hours of actually putting a project proposal together only to get a refusal like that is heartbreaking. It can be exhausting work that would be better spent actually doing the research. 🙄
Thank you for raising this, Diana 🤎 It’s so important to highlight how evaluation systems often overlook the human side of being a scientist. International mobility can bring value, yes, but it should never become the “gold standard” that penalizes those who choose to build a family, stay rooted in their communities, or contribute locally. Science thrives when researchers are supported to live full, balanced lives, not when they’re forced to sacrifice them. Your words are a needed reminder that we must push for fairer, more inclusive evaluation criteria 🫱🏼🫲🏾
I completely share this criticism and also received the “limited internationalization” remark. My CV received very positive comments, and in previous years I scored highly on the CV — 9.0 and 8.5 (in an exploratory project and in a CEEC application included in my CV). This year, however, my score unexpectedly dropped to 7.5, despite an even stronger scientific trajectory. I firmly believe that excellence in science should be assessed by the quality and originality of the work, not by the number of months spent abroad — especially when such stays do not necessarily add value. In my case, I have several publications with international co-authors, and I actively participate in COST actions as well as in a European pedagogic program, but 'lack strong internationalization' This evaluation system risks penalizing committed researchers while undervaluing the creativity and persistence that truly drive scientific progress.
Gabriela Martins
1mo
100% in agreement!! Nowadays, internationalization seems to be mandatory rather than a good CV path!
Lali Giorgidze
1mo
...and noone speaks of those who pursue studies or research abroad to support their families, because there are simply no opportunities within their own countries..
Deniz Akkas
4w
Diana Vieira Hearing that a colleague was criticized for ‘limited internationalization’ really hit me. Expecting researchers especially those with familiesto spend months abroad as a measure of merit is not just unfair, it’s harmful. Talent, creativity, and dedication to science shouldn’t be measured in passport stamps. Science thrives when people can have full lives, not when they’re forced to sacrifice them.
Ana Reis
2w
"Limited internationalisation" is a FALSE problem!... I tend to agree with Claudia Botelho, there is a whole list of arguments as listed by Claudia. The REAL problem is the lack of Research Funding!...because there is not enough money then even strong applications made by researchers with a strong CV get discarded with arguments like the one above. The OTHER REAL PROBLEM is lack of consistency and transparency in the evaluation criteria across the various scientific panels, that's the only reason why colleagues who never left the country, staying in the same host institution (where they did the BsC, MsC and PhD) and still working with their PhD supervisor (usually the criteria to define scientific independence) get funded in CEEC applications. FCT pays good money to evaluators without enforcing objective and equal criteria across the various scientific panels!!!... hopefully, something to be tackled by the new AII agency...
Fulvio Mattivi
1mo
Not to mention that the Union talks a lot about mobility, while it hasn't reached an acceptable standard in fundamental areas such as unifying pension contributions across countries, ensuring access to healthcare and a GP in both the country of primary residence and the country where the research project is being carried out. It's all rhetoric, but in reality, when it comes down to it, researchers find themselves faced with a number of problems!
Leaving a Lasting, Positive Imprint on the World. Researcher & Policy Advocate | Connecting Science, Ethics & One Health
1moOr if keep the same line of research, not innovative enough, or if you change you do not have enough expertise, or very good not funded ...or the CV was very good before children...