The Australian Research Landscape Focus: Linkage Projects 4 August 2015 Dr Fiona Cameron Executive Director Biological Sciences

Topics for today Web: arc.gov.au I Overview of the ARC’s National Competitive Grants Programme (NCGP) Linkage Projects The assessment process Some tips for making a good application

2014–15 Federal Budget (Approx. AU$415 billion) Federal (Treasury omitted)

2014–15 Federal Budget (Approx. AU$415 billion) Australian Government support for science, research and innovation shown in red (Treasury omitted)

Commonwealth Investment in R&D 2014–15

Selected research agencies 2003–2015 funding ($m)

Focusing Government Investment Research Priorities The Australian Government has developed a set of Science and Research Priorities, they are: - soil and water - transport - cybersecurity - energy - resources - advanced manufacturing - environmental change - Health More information at

WA universities 2007–2015 % share of NCGP funding

National Competitive Grants Programme Discovery ProgrammesLinkage Programmes Laureate Fellowships Future Fellowships DECRA Discovery Projects Centres of Excellence SRIs ITRP Linkage Projects Other Fellowships Area of box represents $$ awarded over the period N.B. - Centres of Excellence, SRIs, not awarded in every year. - ITRP & DECRA only funding since 2012 LIEF Other Linkage

ARC NCGP funding by scheme 2006–2014

ARC NCGP funding by Fields of Research 2002–2014 Bio Physics Maths Eng Med Human Society Chem Psych

Linkage fraction vs Discovery fraction Red = Group of 8

ARC funding vs population (log scales) Red = WA unis

ARC funding vs NHMRC (log scales) Red = WA unis

Topics for today (2) Web: arc.gov.au I Overview of the ARC’s National Competitive Grants Programme (NCGP) Linkage Projects The assessment process Some tips for making a good application

Interdisciplinary research 2015 Panel Carriages

Histogram of Rank (Linkage 2010–14)

Mean value of normalized rankings LP10–14

The Linkage Projects scheme objectives Web: arc.gov.au I Initiation and/or development of long-term strategic research alliances between higher education organisations and other organisations, including industry and end-users, in order to apply advanced knowledge to problems and/or to provide opportunities to obtain national economic, social or cultural benefits initiation scale and focus of research in strategic research priorities opportunities for researchers to pursue internationally competitive research in collaboration with organisations outside the higher education sector, targeting those who have demonstrated a clear commitment to high-quality research growth of a national pool of world-class researchers to meet the needs of the broader australian innovation system.

Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE) ROPE was first introduced 2011 ROPE helps provide a more realistic consideration of a researcher’s capabilities and assist those who have had career interruptions for family and other reasons Make the case if time out of academia/research is an asset for the proposal

Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE) (2) The ARC considers that Research Opportunity comprises two separate elements: –Career experiences (relative to opportunity) –Career interruptions The new ROPE Statement (released Feb 2014) is on the ARC website

Some Linkage Stats: Funding and Success Rates Web: arc.gov.au I Since 2005 there have been nearly 2200 instances of collaboration with Australian private companies, as partner organisations on linkage grants.

Success Rate: Comparison of Schemes Web: arc.gov.au I

Focus Clear research problem Mature Plan Clear writing/easy to read Innovation Focus Clear research problem Mature Plan Clear writing/easy to read Innovation Assessment & peer review process ARC College of Experts “NCGP” Assessment & peer review process ARC College of Experts “NCGP” Selection criteria Keep up to date with the rules ROPE*/Track record Selection criteria Keep up to date with the rules ROPE*/Track record *research opportunity and performance evidence FoR codes (ABS) Choose carefully/assessor Not “99” Get good advice Convince assessor of your capability Distinguish from previous/similar work Proposal do’s and don’ts

LP Linkages Australia 2011–14 Higher Education Government Commercial Non-profit/other

LP Linkages WA 2011–14 Higher Education Government Commercial Non-profit/other

Instances of international collaboration on approved proposals in Linkage Projects 2014 Web: arc.gov.au I

Gender balance LP Web: arc.gov.au I

Gender of First CI: LP14 Web: arc.gov.au I

Topics for today (3) Web: arc.gov.au I Overview of the ARC’s National Competitive Grants Programme (NCGP) Linkage Projects The assessment process Some tips for making a good application

ARC Assessment Process Application Panel External Assessment Selection Meeting Outcomes

Proposal assessment—overview The peer review process is designed to be fair, thorough and transparent All proposals are assessed against the selection criteria, and in accordance with the weightings for that scheme Proposals are generally assigned to two types of assessors: –two College of Experts members (General assessors), and –at least two Detailed assessors ARC staff assess eligibility etc., but do not decide which proposals should be funded

The Grants Peer Review Process LP

NCGP Lifecycle

NCGP Lifecycle (2)

Assign external assessors

NCGP Lifecycle (3)

Detailed Assessment numbers— some examples Scheme Detailed assessments Proposals Average assessments per proposal DECRA Discovery Projects , Linkage Projects The ARC is grateful to a large number of extremely hard-working assessors who conduct the peer review process:

NCGP Lifecycle (4)

The Grants Peer Review Process LP (2)

2015 Panel Carriages (2) Interdisciplinary research

ARC Meeting Process Funded application Highly Funded application ranked Funded application Uncertain application 1 Funded application Uncertain application 2 UncertaintyUncertain application 3 bandUncertain application 4 Uncertain application 5 Uncertain application 6 Unfunded application Lowly Unfunded application ranked Uncertain application 7 Unfunded application Final recommendation Uncertain application 1Fund NominalUncertain application 4Fund fundingUncertain application 3Fund line >Uncertain application 2Fund Uncertain application 7Reserve Uncertain application 5Not fund Uncertain application 6Not fund Initial Ranking Shortlisting Funding Voting

NCGP Lifecycle (5)

Topics for today (4) Web: arc.gov.au I Overview of the ARC’s National Competitive Grants Programme (NCGP) Linkage Projects The assessment process Some tips for making a good application

Overall All grants that are successful should provide exciting new outcomes and be an excellent investment Decisions will align with Scheme Objectives Not all excellent proposals can get funding; most applicants will be disappointed

Insights into grants process (1) Consider where to apply for funding; choose a scheme. Pay attention to eligibility and ARC cross scheme limits. The scheme objectives and the selection criteria— address every one of them. Choosing Field of Research Codes—assisting the ARC choose the right assessors. Track Record—career interruption—the ROPE provision. The scale of assessment –The external assessor—1–2 proposals –The ARC panel member—10–50 –ARC Panel meeting—150–400. The rejoinder.

Insights into grants process (2) Understand the research field and international context. Develop your ideas to solve a research problem. Network with leaders in the field. Consider the research environment when applying. Apply by yourself or as a team member… Career interruptions—making a case for ROPE Seek mentors on writing good grant applications Your first grant application –Write for your peers—write so that someone broadly in your field will understand your project –Write for the public—write a plain English statement

Low ranked proposals Use too much technical jargon Make grandiose and implausible claims about outcomes Don't support claims of excellence or progress with evidence Relate to research areas without momentum Are weakly linked into national and international research networks

Low ranked proposals (2) Emphasize the collection of data rather than the solution of controversies Set a negative or depressive tone about the state of the subject in Australia Contain a high rate of spelling and grammatical errors Are badly structured and difficult to follow

Responding to an assessment/rejoinder Read the assessments then wait at least a day before starting the rejoinder Approach it constructively The rejoinder is to help College of Experts to seek applicant’s views on criticisms made by peers Don’t rubbish the assessor—you’re wasting valuable space to address important concerns

Partner Organisation and Partner Investigator Issues Variation types Total Addition of Partner Investigator(s) 15 Addition of Partner Organisation 15 Addition of Partner Organisation and Partner Investigator(s) 13 Change of Partner Investigator(s) 86 Change of Partner Organisation 57 Change of Partner Organisation and addition of Partner Investigator(s) 5 Change of Partner Organisation and Partner Investigator(s) 25 Change of Partner Organisation and Removal of Partner Investigator(s) 4 Removal of Partner Investigator(s) 25 Removal of Partner Organisation 40 Removal of Partner Organisation and change of Partner Investigator(s) 1 Removal of Partner Organisation and Partner Investigator(s) 20 Overall Total of PO/PI changes 306

Variations (VFA) 38% of VFAs are related to Linkage Projects and ITRP. Eg. Partners: – Their inability to meet their cash-contributions. This is being reported to the ARC before, during and after the Project has completed. – Their dis-satisfaction with the level of collaboration and inclusion in the Project. This is reported to the ARC both via the Research Office and from Partner Orgs. – Partner Org relationships breaking down due to poor management.

Important dates; previous round SchemeRelease of Funding Rules Proposals Open Request not to Assess Close Proposals Close RejoindersAnnouncement Linkage Projects for funding commencing in August September October November 2014 Open 17 February 2015 Close 5.00pm (AEDT) 2 March 2015 June 2015 Industrial Transformation Research Hubs for funding commencing in August September November December 2014 Open 23 February 2015 Close 5.00 (AEDT) 6 March May 2015 Industrial Transformation Training Centres for funding commencing in August September November December 2014 Open 23 February 2015 Close 5.00 (AEDT) 6 March May 2015

Researchers by sector of employment Source: OECD, Research and Development Statistics Database, June 2013.

Details of the Industrial Transformation Research Program—the Schemes 1 Web: arc.gov.au I Consists of two schemes: - Industrial Transformation Research Hubs - Industrial Transformation Training Centres

Industrial Transformation Training Centres (ITTC) To foster close partnerships between university-based researchers and industry to provide innovative training for early career researchers vital to Australia’s future industry Over the life of the program the ARC will enable: - establishing Training Centres nationwide - support ‘industry ready’ Higher Degree by Research candidates and postdoctoral researchers - provide a maximum of $1 million per year for up to five (5) years for each Training Centre

Industrial Transformation Research Hubs (ITRH) Opportunities for universities and industrial partners to focus on significant collaborative R&D projects with outcomes beyond their independent endeavours The ARC will invest up to $1 million per year in each Research Hub with matching investment by industry partners up to a maximum of five years

ITRP Linkages All rounds Higher Education Government Commercial Non-profit/other

ITRP Linkages All rounds; UWA and Curtin Higher Education Government Commercial Non-profit/other

Investment in ‘Food and Agriculture’ through ITRP, to date (starting 2012) 10/15 Successful ARC $34,932,067 All additional cash $19,938,338 All additional in kind $46,138,146 Total. $101,008,551

Manufacturing: primary priority 5/13 successful, UQ/Monash/UNSW/Deakin/Melbourne/ ARC $17,588,339 All additional cash $15,211,290 All additional in kind $30,399,937 Total. $63,199,566

Oil and Gas priority 3/7 successful Sydney, 2 x UWA ARC $12,317,827 All additional cash $14,897,114 All additional in kind $17,873,693 Total. $43,891,488

Thank you