You say social science was “largely underrepresented” (3 of 53 projects), but later claim 10 projects addressed social systems or human health. That feels like shifting definitions. Which of those actually used social science methods (interviews, ethnography, institutional analysis) vs. just measuring human impacts with natural-science tools? Without that distinction, the call for more social science funding isn’t well supported.
The program’s supposed strength was fostering interdisciplinary exchange, yet you admit that “interdisciplinarity was not a foundational objective” and that meaningful cross‑talk only started emerging near the end. If the structure didn’t mandate integration, isn’t this just a collection of great individual projects with optional networking on top? How does that make MOPGA a model for future funding, rather than a lesson that you need to design interdisciplinarity from the start?
You tout 946 products and cite rates comparable to the ERC, but without a baseline – what would a similar pool of unfunded applicants have produced, or how do these outputs compare to other large international programs per Euro spent? The “excellence” claim feels like circular reasoning: of course funded projects publish. Could you share a concrete comparator?
The key methodological table (S4 Text, Table A) is referenced but not included in the paper, and you say 133 DOI‑identified products weren’t searchable on Web of Science. What were those, and why exclude them? That affects the citation metrics and cluster analysis, so it’s hard to judge the robustness of Figure 2.