View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What do reviewers look for in a research proposal? Research Councils’ review criteria
Dimitra KoutsantoniResearch & Knowledge Transfer Manager
Date Arial Bold 10pt
ESRC Review process
Stage 1: proposal sent to an average of three referees, depending on the amount requested (one of the nominated academic reviewers, and both (if two are selected) of the nominated non academic users of the research)
Stage 2: proposal and referee comments sent to and graded by at least two members of the Board or Panel that is responsible for making a judgement on whether to fund the application (called 'Assessors')
Stage 3: proposal forwarded to the most appropriate Board or Panel meeting for a final decision of whether to fund.
Stage 4: decision letter sent to applicant
Date Arial Bold 10pt
ESRC standard proposals review criteria
Academic reviewers: Originality; potential contribution to knowledge Research design and methods Value for Money Communication strategy and planned outputs
Non-academic reviewers: Likely importance of research to potential users Timeliness of the outcomes for potential users Effectiveness of plans for involving potential users and
disseminating results to them
Date Arial Bold 10pt
EPSRC review process
Stage 1: proposal sent to at least four reviewers, including at least one nominated by the investigator.
Stage 2: proposal sent to funding prioritisation panels (membership of these panels is drawn from across EPSRC's scientific remit including academics and practitioners)
Stage 3: reviewers' reports (made anonymous) will be passed back to the investigator for comment.
Stage 4: Heads of Programme decide which proposals will be funded based upon the rank ordered list produced by the panel and the funding available
Stage 4: Principal Investigators are notified of the outcome of the panel in writing
Date Arial Bold 10pt
EPSRC review criteria
Impact: timeliness; contribution to UK’s world standing; ability to advance research knowledge
Degree of novelty or risk: originality; degree of adventure and potential to produce high return in knowledge advances and/or exploitation; incremental nature of research
People and development: contribution to training and development to highly skilled researchers
Collaboration: with other departments, institutions, business, international Ability of applicant to deliver the research: skills and experience of team Planning and Management: timescales; methodology; management of
risks; dissemination plans Resources requested: justification and appropriateness Potential contribution to Knowledge Transfer: user engagement; transfer
of knowledge to business and society; exploitation of research outputs
Date Arial Bold 10pt
Why do proposals fail? Analysis of reviewers’ comments on Cass applications
An analysis of 51 reviewers’ comments taken from reviewers’ reports sent to 15 unsuccessful applicants from Cass Business School (3 on EPSRC applications and 12 on ESRC applications) dating 2002-2006 showed the proposal aspects reviewers found weak/problematic:
Date Arial Bold 10pt
Methodology not clearly explained: 31%Limited impact/applicability of research: 22%No end-user engagement/collaboration: 14%No innovation in approach: 12%Aim not stated: 8%Data not described: 8%Focus (too narrow or too wide): 8%Poor dissemination plan: 8%Limited value for money: 8%No innovation in method: 6%Limited awareness of literature/existing studies: 6%No justification of need for the research: 6%Non-compliance with scheme specification: 6%Lack of theoretical framework: 4%Lack of project management skills: 2%
Date Arial Bold 10pt
What is the message?
Reviewers want to see: Clearly explained and detailed methodology Research with potential for high impact and applicability Research that will engage end-users and will generate
collaborations with end-users Research that is innovative
Date Arial Bold 10pt
Research Councils Knowledge Transfer schemes
Emphasis on knowledge transfer and development of relationships with businesses
Date Arial Bold 10pt
ESRC Business Engagement Scheme Value for money: justification of costs/breakdown of costs Demonstrable impact/quantification of benefits Demonstrable commitment from partner organisation User engagement Relevance and support of the ESRC strategic and delivery
plans
Date Arial Bold 10pt
ESRC Capacity Building Clusters Scheme (1) capability to deliver the portfolio of activities within the cluster package
potential achievability of the cluster in relation to the core aim of the initiative
value for money of the activities
potential for the cluster to exploit and deepen existing relationships with business and develop new relationships
potential for the development of the cluster through securing co-funding from partners and/or other
agencies and business organisations
overall management and organisation structure
Date Arial Bold 10pt
ESRC Capacity Building Clusters Scheme (2) appropriateness of the proposed organisation and management of the Business Voucher scheme
adequacy of strategies for ensuring effective business engagement and knowledge exchange/transfer (relevance and support of the ESRC’s Business Engagement Strategy)
current critical mass of studentships (including CASE) and other capacity building activity (including KTPs) and the existing supervisory/mentoring experience for hosting these awards
suitability of proposed strategies for capturing the impact of the activities in the cluster package
how the cluster application adds to this provision and develops/further develops critical mass
the suitability of proposed strategies for capturing the impact of the activities in the cluster package