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

Process

What is the College? ARC COLLEGE OF EXPERTS 158 MEMBERS 3 Selection panels for Linkage (BEM) Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Environmental, Medical and Health Sciences (PME) Physical, Mathematical and Information Sciences and Engineering (HSE) Humanities and Creative Arts, Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences

Assessment Your application gets read by 2 – 6 expert reviewers Your application gets read by two 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 (BEM or PME or HSE) 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 Value for money disqualification

How much do they fund? Summary of Outcomes The ARC received a total of 699 proposals for Linkage Projects 2014. The overall success rate is 35.9 per cent, which represents a decrease from the success rate of 39.0 per cent in Linkage Projects 2013. Table 1. Comparison of proposal numbers, success rates, requested and allocated funds for successful proposals from Linkage Projects from 2013 to 2014   Funding Year Proposals considered Proposals approved Success rate Requested funds over project life (all proposals) Requested funds over project life (approved proposals) Funds allocated over project life Allocation as a percentage of request 2013 785 306 39.0% $304,720,415 $134,906,880 $101,809,345 75.5% 2014 699 251 35.9% $278,890,547 $116,033,006 $88,154,841 76.0%

How much do they fund? Approved Funding by Discipline Panel Panel* Table 2. Comparison of proposal numbers, success rates and requested and allocated funds for approved Linkage Projects 2014 proposals by discipline panel   Panel* Proposals considered Proposals approved Success rate Requested funds over project life (all proposals considered) Approved funds over project life (approved proposals) BEM 200 70 35.0% $84,902,097 $26,984,276 HSE 184 65 35.3% $63,475,529 $21,367,311 PME 315 116 36.8% $130,512,921 $39,803,254 Total 699 251 35.9% $278,890,547 $88,154,841 *BEM = Biological Sciences, Biotechnology, Environmental, Medical and Health Sciences; HSE = Humanities and Creative Arts, Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences; PME = Physical, Mathematical and Information Sciences and Engineering

Do they fund equitably?

Do they fund equitably?

The Proposal

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 industry cash and strong support Have an outstanding team Have a project topic and design that will provide outcomes far beyond industry partner Have a topic that is of broad national or international importance or will transform a small industry Innovate, innovate, innovate New methods, new team combination, unusual outcomes,

WHAT ASSESSORS LOOK FOR Need to impress in the first page USE AIMS & BACKGROUND TO LAY THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION Assessor does not want to hear about the partner organisations and their local mission at this point. Need: a broadly defined and exciting research project. a sharp innovative focus clearly defined and achievable aims

HOW TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION Quick review of recent developments in the field What are major unanswered conceptual questions Identify the industry limitation, problem or opportunity Indication of your experience and how you will apply that in new ways What system do you have that are of value to industry Why can you take this beyond where others have been Have focussed, achievable aims Explain the partner organisation role EXCITEMENT & INNOVATION You need to Excite non-expert CoE members You need to Impress your expert peers Why will this research solve a major issue for industry and for the nation

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 What partner organisation facilities will you exploit 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 NOT TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION Repeat of work done 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 Innovation for partner organisation to get into research = not impressive BUT it is legitimate to build on previous grants with new questions, “Next stage” projects

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 the roles of each CI, PI and other contributors e.g. Include Partner Organisation research staff here if they have moderate track records. They do not have to be PIs Explain roles of any Postdoctoral personnel or HDR positions

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 Start preparing early Collaborations and Linkage Partners need to be developed and nurtured for 12 months or more. Previously successful collaborations need even more nurturing.

Some general hints about the minutiae of applications READ THE RULES YOURSELF .... IN DETAIL IF YOU ARE UNSURE ABOUT ANYTHING ASK RESEARCH SERVICES OFFICE 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 Have expectations, be angry, respond to positive comments NEVER thank the reviewers Be brief - stay well under the word limit Address the major criticisms There is a stochastic component

Questions?