La modalidad depende de la naturaleza del proyecto, pero no es neutra: el impacto vale hasta 15 puntos sobre 100 en investigación no orientada y 25 en orientada, con umbrales de 5 y 15. Un proyecto orientado necesita una sección de impacto que aguante ese listón.

Este año, la valoración del presupuesto se integra en el subcriterio de viabilidad, dentro del criterio de más peso. Un gasto sin una actividad que lo justifique puede bajar esa nota.

Así organizaría el trabajo con los grupos, con los criterios de evaluación como guía desde el inicio:

- Semana 1: modalidad, tipo de proyecto, equipo, presupuesto estimado e idioma. La memoria va en inglés a partir de 100.000 euros en costes directos solicitados (en los coordinados, sumando subproyectos); en los tipo I, memoria y CVA siempre en inglés. Entrega interna una semana antes del cierre y prueba de firma hecha.
- Semana 2: presupuesto, actividades y calendario contrastados con cada equipo.
- Semana 3: comprobación final de criterios y límites de extensión, y firma con margen.

Una buena propuesta puede perderse por una incoherencia de presupuesto o una firma a destiempo. El trabajo de la oficina es que eso no ocurra.

¿Con cuánto margen fijáis vosotros la entrega interna?

Fuentes: página de la convocatoria en la Agencia Estatal de Investigación y extracto publicado en el BOE n.º 244, de 2 de octubre de 2026.

—

€724 million, three weeks and a signature that cannot be unlocked.

Today Spain’s State Research Agency (AEI) opens its 2026 Knowledge Generation Projects call. A signed and registered application can only be corrected by requesting its deletion and resubmitting it.

The category, oriented or non-oriented research, depends on the nature of the project, but it is not neutral: impact is worth up to 15 points out of 100 for non-oriented research and 25 for oriented, with thresholds of 5 and 15. An oriented project needs an impact section that can clear that bar.

Budget assessment now forms part of the feasibility subcriterion, within the heaviest criterion. A cost with no activity behind it can lower that score.

How I would organise the three weeks, with the evaluation criteria as a guide from day one:

- Week 1: category, project type, team, budget estimate and language. The project description goes in English from €100,000 in requested direct costs (summed across subprojects); Type I: description and CV always in English. Internal deadline one week before close; signature test done.
- Week 2: budget, activities and timeline checked with each team.
- Week 3: final check of criteria and page limits; signature with time to spare.

A strong proposal can be lost to a budget inconsistency or a late signature. The research office’s job is to prevent that.

How much margin do you build into your internal deadline?

Sources: call page of Spain’s State Research Agency (AEI) and official extract in Spain’s Official State Gazette (BOE) No. 244, 2 October 2026.

The Commission has proposed around €175 billion for the 2028–2034 Framework Programme, almost twice the current one. That figure will dominate the negotiations. What happens after the money arrives gets far less attention.

Last weekend, cost-of-living protests filled streets from Paris to Milan, Brussels and Lisbon. Students in France and Belgium have spent weeks protesting university fees. Germany is arguing over pensions, and Spain goes to the polls on 29 November. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain have agreed to end the temporary air and sea border checks they introduced in August, following talks between their interior ministers. That is how Europe usually moves forward: slowly, and far from the headlines.

Slow is not the same as stuck. A recent conversation with colleagues in academia reminded me where much of the forward movement comes from. Universities are where Europe’s knowledge is generated, from basic science to the evidence behind its laws. They offer what a divided moment lacks: findings that outlast an election cycle, researchers trained to work across borders, and networks that keep running when governments change.

AI governance shows how this works. Europe has its AI law. Making it work takes research on how people actually use AI systems, projects that build safeguards in from the design stage, and teams that carry that knowledge from one grant to the next. Behind every funded project there is also a research management team turning ideas into consortia, budgets and results, work that few people outside a university ever see.

Having worked both inside international organisations and alongside them, I find this the most compelling part: helping knowledge become lasting capacity inside an institution.

Polarisation wins headlines. Institutions win decades.

What would need to change for each research grant to leave the institution behind it stronger, not just fund the next project?

Mine: keeping the people who know how to run a project from one grant to the next. Too often, that knowledge leaves when the contract ends.