How Research Environment Matters Prof Jim Mitchell

Recent Discovery History G6 dropped with DP# decrease Leading research environments did not protect them

Recent Discovery History Yes, the g8 have more But the big drop did not drive a single Uni to zero

Gains (or not) since 2010 Why aren’t the G6 protected by their research environment?

ARC College ranking Your DP scores start at A A A & A (net A) But only 5% of scores can be As, therefore Your score goes to A A B & B or A A B & C (net B) The other reader didn’t like it and so reconciliation is necessary, which means you have to lower the score again. Your score goes to A B C & D (Net C) What about detailed reviews? Past scores were higher College went from 16 to 36, panel is still 16, other 20? The other 20 rotate in but mostly do reviews Many reviews done by College or ex-College members They go through the first 3 dot points without prompting because they get up to 20 proposals and know the 55% rule (need to be D or E)

What to do? Build outward Show that you are building & enhancing research culture Mention ERA and World rankings if you are a major contributor to those scores If not you are a drag on the score Otherwise focus on creation of local research environment Points: How many… group meetings/wk? visitors? Are they high profile? Are they high impact, sub-discipline, discipline, beyond? workshops for industry, students, staff? people in the department do you publish with? people in the department do you hold grants with?

About the rest Build a research culture engaged internationally and the team and questions come more easily Which question? Pick a question and approach in writing a Discovery proposal that will make the reader think ‘Wow, I hadn’t thought of that, but it is really what is needed to move the discipline ahead.’ The goal is 4 As and to inspire the reader to pick someone else’s 4th A for the distribution fit and reconcilation.

Recent Discovery History Yes, the g8 have more But the big drop did not drive a single Uni to zero

How to improve ARC-Discovery success: What college members look for Jim Mitchell Member of ARC College 2012-2014 Seventeen grants from the ARC over the last 20 years Modified from Mike Bull’s presentation

Process

What is the College? ARC COLLEGE 173 MEMBERS (was 77) 5 PANELS Biological Sciences and Biotechnology (BSB) Engineering, Mathematics and Informatics (EMI) Humanities and Creative Arts (HCA) Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences (PCE) Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences (SBE)

Assessment Your application gets read by 2 – 6 expert reviewers 2 College members At least one of the members is unlikely to be an expert in your field You do not see College scores or comments They contribute 50% or more towards your final ARC score

Ranking The expert and college letter scores (A, B, C, D, E), which you do not see, are combined to produce a rank The rank is within the panel, thus a proposal competes against all other proposals within the panel The ranking is forced to 55% D or E Expert review words may not reflect letter scores

The budget The budget is only looked at after the ranking is set. Budget size does not influence the ranking It is a one line budget with a decreasing number of restrictions

How much do we fund?

How much do we fund?

How much do we fund?

How much do we fund? Why 0 at level 1? It is hard to prove world leadership from a junior position. ARC looks for international competitiveness and leadership, which means international esteem measures (BAFTAs, AA, Lasker, Nobel, Fields…). If one were that good one would be promoted even if young. Remember to benchmark is against the best in the world, not in Australia

Do we fund equitably? Bias caused primarily by EMI, which receives the most proposals, but few with females

Do we fund equitably? 28 28 34 40 33 28 33 14

Do they fund equitably?

Do they fund equitably?

The proposal Remember to benchmark is against the best in the world.

What does the ARC fund? World leading research Consistently productive researchers Research that will provide ‘bang for the buck’ Long term research programs

Check box synopsis Have world leading novelty and innovation Have an outstanding team Have a project topic and design that will provide far reaching outcomes Innovate, innovate, innovate New methods, new team combination, unusual outcomes,

Some advice from Mike Make yourself known: Conference presentations Seminars Visit research groups Someone out there will be an assessor for a future grant. If your research is good make people aware of it

The Selection Criteria Investigator (40%) we look at ROPE closely maternity leave, cancer, etc. are taken seriously and taken into account Project Quality and Innovation (25%) Feasibility and Benefit (20%) Research Environment (15%) - research environment - available facilities - dissemination plan (where will you publish? Don’t say Nature if you have never published there.)

WHAT ASSESSORS LOOK FOR Need to impress in the first page USE AIMS & BACKGROUND TO LAY THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION Need: a broadly defined and exciting research project. a sharp innovative focus clearly defined and achievable aims

HOW TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS & College Members SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION Quick review of recent developments in the field What are major unanswered conceptual questions Indication of your experience and how you will apply that in new ways What system do you have that is of value Why can you take this beyond where others have been Have focussed, achievable aims Explain the team members’ roles EXCITEMENT & INNOVATION You need to Excite non-expert CoE members You need to Impress your expert peers Why will this research solve a major unanswered question or open a new field

HOW NOT TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION Repeat of work elsewhere, in an Australian context = not impressive Tidying up experiments from a previous grant = not impressive Vague “broad-brush” aims = not impressive Aims that are methods or techniques = not impressive Maintaining long-term data base = not impressive Getting yourself or team into a new field = not impressive BUT it is legitimate to build on previous grants with new questions, “Next stage” projects

HOW TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Clearly indicate logical structure of project How do methods relate to project aims How will hypotheses be tested Divide with subheadings: relate to your specific hypotheses Cover contingencies: try to predict and address reviewers comments

HOW TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Avoid: “Cutting Edge Research” = “only 20 other Australian Universities doing it” “State of the Art Facilities” = “installed sometime in the last 15 years” “We are unaware of any study where this procedure has been attempted before” = “We haven’t really checked but probably no-one else has done it on a south facing laboratory bench” BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR CLAIMS OF RESEARCH LEADERSHIP

HOW TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS NATIONAL BENEFIT Warning: National Research priorities .... “climate change!!!” a climatologist College member will rank and comment Training researchers Developing research links Maintaining Australia’s high profile & leadership

COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS Does anyone consider this in assessment?? YES, but beware make supportable and reasonable claims peer reviewed literature national and international conferences community groups radio and TV

ROLE OF PERSONNEL Ensure that all required skills for project are covered Explain every team member’s role Demonstrate everyone is essential Convince us that the collaborations are real

Budget College members set the budgets Do not pad Do not over promise Value for money plays into the funding Commonly College members feel that people should be able to attract students with APAs Break sequencing costs into sub sections

MAJOR STRATEGY SUGGESTION Collaborations need to be developed and nurtured for 12 months or more. Previously successful collaborations need even more nurturing.

MAJOR STRATEGY SUGGESTION (IF PARTNERS IN PLACE) Start preparing application early (>6 months before) Get feedback (peers .... co-investigators)

DO NOT RELY ON OTHER PEOPLE PICKING UP ERRORS IN YOUR APPLICATION Some general hints about the minutia of applications READ THE RULES YOURSELF .... IN DETAIL IF YOU ARE UNSURE ABOUT ANYTHING ASK RESEARCH SERVICES MAKE SURE YOU FOLLOW ALL OF THE APPLICATION RULES EXACTLY THE ARC IS UNFORGIVING DO NOT RELY ON OTHER PEOPLE PICKING UP ERRORS IN YOUR APPLICATION

WHAT TO DO WHEN THE REVIEWS COME BACK Do not develop positive or negative expectations Do not respond with anger Do not respond to positive comments Briefly address major criticisms; if you think reviewer has misinterpreted your application clearly explain why. CoE is looking for reasons to discount a particular reviewer. Be as brief as possible Stay well under the word limit

LONGER-TERM ARC STRATEGIES Continue to submit after success Remember success is a stochastic process DO NOT wait until your funding is about to run out

Questions?