MSCA Doctoral Networks updates the rules for the 2026 call

The 2026 edition of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Doctoral Networks (MSCA DN), the European programme designed to create international doctoral training networks, introduces several changes affecting the preparation and strategy of proposals. The call, which remains open until 24th November, has a budget of approximately €593 million, with which the European Commission expects to fund more than 130 projects and train around 1,950 doctoral candidates. The main new features include the introduction of a minimum threshold for each evaluation criterion, a new scientific panel allocation system, greater flexibility for research and training secondments, updated financial contributions and the launch of the RAISE pilot for projects focused on artificial intelligence applied to science.

MSCA DN funds consortia of universities, research centres, companies and other organisations from different countries to recruit and train doctoral candidates. The networks must offer structured research and training programmes, combine scientific knowledge with transferable skills, and promote international, intersectoral and interdisciplinary mobility. The call includes three formats: standard Doctoral Networks; Industrial Doctorates, in which companies play a particularly important role; and Joint Doctorates, which focus on joint programmes leading to joint or multiple degrees.

The main new features of MSCA Doctoral Networks 2026

A new minimum threshold for the evaluation criteria

The first significant change in this year’s edition is the introduction of a minimum score of 3 out of 5 for each evaluation criterion, in addition to the overall threshold of 70%. A proposal may therefore be excluded even if it achieves a sufficient overall score when it receives fewer than 3 points for Excellence, Impact or Implementation. “Although competitive proposals already tended to receive scores well above this threshold in all three criteria, making it a formal requirement reinforces the need to maintain a high level of quality throughout the proposal,” says Eduardo García, knowledge area leader for Science and Universities at Zabala Innovation. “Consortia will still need to strike the right balance between scientific quality, impact strategy and robust implementation,” he adds.

Changes to evaluation panel allocation

The second change concerns the selection of the evaluation panel. In the 2025 call, applicants had to select directly one of the eight scientific panels in which their proposal would be evaluated. In 2026, however, panel allocation will be linked to the first descriptor selected in Part A. This change may affect the profile of the experts who review the project and the competitive context in which it is evaluated. According to García, “for interdisciplinary proposals, it will be particularly important to choose as the first descriptor the one that best represents the scientific core of the proposal, while using the remaining descriptors to reflect complementary disciplines or areas”.

Greater flexibility for research and training secondments

Thirdly, the 2026 call extends the maximum duration of research and training secondments that doctoral candidates may undertake at other participating or associated organisations within standard Doctoral Networks. The limit increases from one-third to half of the researcher’s effective recruitment period. This means, for example, that a doctoral candidate recruited for 36 months may undertake secondments lasting up to 18 months. This greater flexibility will make it easier to design training pathways that are better adapted to the scientific needs of each project and will strengthen cooperation between the consortium’s different partners. The change does not affect Industrial Doctorates or Joint Doctorates, which were already exempt from this restriction.

Updated funding for recruiting doctoral candidates

The fourth new feature concerns the funding available to the networks. The European Commission is increasing the monthly contribution intended to cover the recruitment costs of doctoral candidates from €4,010 to €4,250 and updating the correction coefficients used to adjust this amount to the cost of living in each country. “In any case, these amounts refer to the contribution received by the institution, not to the net salary received by the researcher,” García notes.

A new opportunity for networks focused on artificial intelligence

The fifth major development is the launch of the Resource for AI Science in Europe (RAISE), a pilot project with approximately €30 million in additional funding to support doctoral networks focused on applying artificial intelligence to scientific research. “This is not a separate MSCA Doctoral Networks format, but rather an additional funding pathway for consortia that explicitly choose to apply with proposals in which the development of artificial intelligence systems, models, tools or methodologies is a central element,” García explains.

Using existing AI applications merely to support research will not be sufficient. Artificial intelligence must form part of the network’s scientific core, and all doctoral candidates must receive specific training in this field. “For consortia with genuine expertise in AI applied to science, this initiative may represent an additional funding opportunity. For others, attempting to apply under the pilot without a solid justification could undermine the proposal’s credibility,” the expert concludes.

What does Zabala Innovation offer for MSCA Doctoral Networks?

Preparing a proposal requires the research project to be aligned with the network’s structure, training programme, supervision arrangements, the doctoral candidates’ career development and the consortium’s capacity. With more than 65 proposals submitted or reviewed and a success rate of over 20% in this programme, Zabala Innovation supports interested organisations throughout every stage of preparing an MSCA DN proposal, with a service tailored to the level of support required by each consortium. This support may focus on reviewing and advising on a proposal drafted by the applicant, cover the complete preparation of the proposal or help improve a project that was submitted in a previous edition but did not receive funding.

Complete proposal preparation

As part of its full proposal preparation services, the team specialising in European research, development and innovation programmes works closely with the project coordinator from the earliest strategic decisions. Support includes defining the concept, building and structuring the consortium, planning the work process, gathering input from partners, preparing the budget and drafting the main content. Technical monitoring is also provided to ensure that the different sections of the proposal follow a coherent line of argument and address the call’s requirements and evaluation criteria.

Proposal review and advisory services

When the consortium already has a draft, Zabala Innovation offers a dedicated review and advisory service. The work begins with a detailed analysis of the call and the structure of the proposal, drawing on established good practices and the experience gained from European projects. This initial assessment is followed by several phased reviews identifying weaknesses, inconsistencies, information gaps and opportunities to strengthen the proposal. After each review, the team meets with the coordinator to explain its observations, answer questions and facilitate the effective incorporation of the proposed improvements.

The support may also include practical workshops on some of the most strategic sections, such as defining the project’s impact, designing the doctoral training programme, supervising researchers or allocating responsibilities among participants. This ongoing work helps coordinate contributions from organisations with different profiles and ensures that the final application is presented as a coherent proposal rather than as a collection of independently drafted texts.

Resubmission of previously unsuccessful proposals

For proposals being resubmitted, the service begins with an analysis of the evaluation reports received in the previous edition. The aim is not to respond separately to each comment, but to determine which underlying issues explain the score awarded, reassess the overall approach and strengthen the sections with the greatest scope for improvement. This allows the new version to retain its strongest elements while correcting the scientific, strategic or implementation-related shortcomings identified by the evaluators.