ARC projects and Fellowships

Process: the black box revealed

Track record: we believe you (mostly)

Fellowships: where are you in your career path?

Body of proposal: logical, exciting, a good story

Budget tips: thrifty is trendy in the ARC

Rejoinders: you must write one; short, not personal, opportunity to update

Panels relevant to Biologymembership available from www.arc.gov.au

• biological sciences & biotechnology (BSB)

• engineering & environmental sciences (EES)

• humanities & creative arts• mathematics, information & communication sciences• physics, chemistry & geoscience• social, behavioural & economic sciences

Assessors

EAC = college member, reviews >100 DP applications > 50 Linkage pa, can revise ranking ±, assigns intreaders for DPs (EAC 1). 13 members of BSB. One is selected as Chair. Each grant is read by 2 EAC members.

Ozreader = discipline expert drawn from pool, reviews ≤20 applications, weighting = no. of applications reviewed, prized for knowledge + willingness to rank a critical mass of applications. Assigned by ED

Intreaders = real experts (can be for specific aspects of applications), reviews ≤6 applications, weighting = no. of applications reviewed, prized for specialist knowledge. Not used for linkage.

ED Executive Director, takes care of particular panel, plus other schemes. Assigns Ozreaders to particular grants taking advice from EAC members.

Key words are VIP

research branch ARC panelED

Ozreader 1

Ozreader 2

EAC 2

EAC 1

Intreader 1

Intreader 2

applicant

April in Canberra

process for assignment of applications to reviewers

• account for conflicts of interest due to institution or other factors

• find most appropriate reviewer from pool– ED for EACs: based on broad area of responsibility of

EACs– (KEYWORDS ARE VIP)– EAC1 for Intreaders: based on project summary and / or

more intensive reading of application + knowledge of field, trawling through ARC data base, trawling through other data bases (such as pubmed), suggested reviewers from GAMS, (KEYWORDS ARE VIP)

– ED for Ozreaders: pool of Ozreaders is more limited and areas of expertise are probably more carefully defined

– (KEYWORDS ARE VIP)

June

research branch ARC panelED

Ozreader 1

Ozreader 2

EAC 2

EAC 1

Intreader 1

Intreader 2

Intreader 3

Intreader 4

S & C

S & C

S & C

S & C

S & C

S & C

scores

scores

applicant

July

research branch ARC panelED

Ozreader 1

Ozreader 2

EAC 2

EAC 1

Intreader 1

Intreader 2

Intreader 3

Intreader 4

S & C

S & C

S & C

S & C

S & C

S & C

scores

scores

applicant

Comments only

rejoinder

Late July

research branch ARC panelED

EAC 2

EAC 1applicant

Comments only

rejoinder

scores and ranking

ranking

1. each reviewer’s weighted score is talliedDP=(TR*0.4) + (S/I*0.3) + (Appr*0.2) + (NB*0.1)LP=(TR*0.2) + (ISI*0.25) + (Appr*0.2) + (NB*0.1) + (Commit*0.25)

2. applications ranked 1 to N based on weighted scores (N = total number of grants reviewed by reviewer)

3. application rank is converted to percent rank 4. application percent rank is weighted according to

the number of applications reviewed by the respective reviewers and a weighted average is calculated (WAPR).

Recommendation to the Minister

research branch ARC panelED

EAC 2

EAC 1applicant

Comments only

rejoinder

scores and ranking

discussion± reranking

selection meeting $?

Budget considered in detail at this point

TRACK RECORD

• Based on past– high level of input from broad base of outside sources

(eg journals, societies…)

• Correlates with other criteria, as well– feasibility (approach)– significance and innovation

• TR scores tend to add up, ie weighted to higher track records of CIs and PIs (rather than averaged)

• plenty of opportunity to make clear in application

B10 research record relative to opportunity 1

• read and follow the instructions• most significant contributions to this research

field (B10.1)

– don’t hold back (we will believe you, generally)

– focus on your impact directly (narrowly) on research outcomes in this half page, ie how you have changed/moved this area of research

• Do not do this: “I have carried out research in area x for 20 years and have published significant papers, and have obtained 20 mill in research funds blah blah.”

• Do this:– I discovered x (see papers 1,2,3) which resulted in an

international effort to find y (citations n).– I discovered that a results in b such that the

previously accepted paradigm was incorrect (papers 4,5,6). This has led to numerous other groups….

– The outcomes of my research have resulted in z being used by …… in a commercial……. (evidence, see publications 5,6,7+)

B10 research record relative to opportunity 2

B10 research record relative to opportunity 3

Significant publications in last 5 yrs (B10.2)• Ensure that authorship role is clear on all publications

(account for differences in conventions of discipline, journal, team)– do not assume all reviewers will know conventions– place explanation in obvious place

• Enhance basic information with evidence of impact (think RQF, ERA whatever), succinctly include information on:– reviews, sales, other impact of books– impact factors, citations, other impact of articles– acceptance rate (if appropriate), other impact of conference

papers– relevance/impact indices of other publications

B10 research record relative to opportunity 4

Ten best career publications (B10.3)• Unlimited space:• Complete the citations with clear evidence of impact

(think again of RQF):– number of times publication has been cited,

referred to, etc…– any type of (positive) editorial reaction to

publication– practical outcomes– at some point it would be worth giving average

citation rates compared to average in field etc.

B10 research record relative to opportunity 5

10.4 other evidence of impact and contributions• half page:• continue theme begun in 10.1, broadening emphasis to

wider recognition of your research record• from instructions (prizes, awards, patents, experience in

industry, editorial boards…)– reviewer is good, associate editor (expert panel) is better– member of society is good, officer is better– participant in conference is good, organiser is better– presentations are good, invitations are better

• broader recognition of your research (eg consultancies)• place all achievements in context, eg

– award given every 5 years– first non-American to receive…

B10 relative to opportunity 610.5 other aspects of career…relevant to assessment• half page:• use as required• be clear, succinct and reasonable

– major illnesses or injuries– relocations– time off for maternity/paternity leave+

– changes of career, research directions– Other

– Can take the opportunity to present references of papers recently submitted.

B10 research record relative to opportunity 7

10.6 fellowship supplementary information• one page:• fellowships are good additions to applications• follow instructions, addressing all points• Can be at same institution but give strong reasons

Fellowships• APD and APDI (3 years 100% ARC) $61,399

– submission of PhD on or after early March 2006 (date to be advised, ie within 3 years of PhD submission)

– Can have 75% (ARC) 25% (inst.) split for 4 years– Can be a fellowship on a DP with other investigators, or stand alone

application (as ECR).

• QEII $91,578 and APF $77,008 (5 years)– Not more than 8 years professional experience since PhD submission.– Can have 50:50 split in funding (ARC:Institution), but still 5 year full time

on research.– APD, APDI can only nominate in or after their final year– Can have second award but must be 50:50 split

• Future Fellowships ($95,000 or $135,000)– 5- to 20 years since submission

Body of proposal

• Construct for the right audience (ie COEs and Aus readers)

• Consider that COE member might not know the field• Make it exciting• Have clear aims and hypotheses linked to approach• Use preliminary data (VIP), but make sure that it

reproduces well in copies, do not use small fonts• Show how your previous research is relevant and how

you are leading the field• Keep reminding yourself of the weightings:

Eg LP=(TR*0.2) + (SI*0.25) + (Appr*0.2) + (NB*0.1) + (Alliance*0.25)

Budget tips

• No point going for teaching relief (BSB)

• No point indexing salaries

• Provide good justification (will reduce degree of cut

depending on ranking)

• Do not make project absolutely dependent on a large

budget.

• Remember average cut is about 40% (BSB), average

budget is about 300-350K over 3 years.

Timing

• ARC Linkage grants need significant lead times:– To establish relationship with partner– To negotiate partner’s desired outcomes– To negotiate partner’s investment– To allow for feedback internally etc, get it read by a

previously successful applicant or EAC member.

– I estimate 6 months minimum, more likely 12-18 months (also links with budgeting in partner organisations).

Rejoinders

• Always provide one

• Usually used to discard or reduce weighting of an

assessor that may have been too harsh.

• It does make an impact so construct it carefully.

• Do not get personal.

• Can provide additional findings or publications.