1. Claire Smith Humanities and Creative Arts Panel (2009-2011)
ARC Discovery and DECRA Schemes From an Assessor's Perspective 30th January, 2012
Claire Smith
Humanities and Creative Arts Panel ( )

2. Who are the Assessors?

3. ARC College of Experts 79 MEMBERS 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)

4. BSB PANEL 2009
13 MEMBERS
Biochemistry
Biotechnology
Molecular Biology
Protein structure
Immunology
Microbiology
Plant biochemistry
Nutrition
Embryology
Evolutionary genomics
Plant physiology
Animal behaviour
Ecology
Three year cycles

5. Assessment Process

6. Assigning Applications to Panels and EAC Members
Automatically assigned to a Panel using Research Fields Courses and Discipline Classification codes.
Checked by Executive Director (ED).
ED assesses Summary and allocates applications to EAC1 and EAC2.
EAC1 has primary responsibility.

7. Assigning Readers Extensive databases for OZ and INT readers searched.
EAC1 assign two OZ readers.
EAC1, with help from EAC2, nominates two INT readers.
All DP assessors finalised in April.

8. EAC Member Role Over 500 applications for each Panel.
applications for each EAC member.
EAC1 and EAC2 scores each application (these scores are not provided to the applicant).
No involvement, whatsoever, with applications from Flinders University.

9. CoE Assessment Steps
CoE assess proposals to determine preliminary and provisional scoring and ranking.
CoE revise scores with access to reviewers’ scores.
Finalise scores with access to Rejoinders.

10. Ranking Proposals Scores from EAC1 and EAC2.
Scores, Rankings and Reports from Readers.
Rejoinders from applicants.
Each application given score based on Weighted Average Percent Rank.
EAC1 adjusts calculated score as necessary, in consultation with EAC2.

11. Ranking System
A ranking system is used to combine CoE and reviewer assessments submitted for each proposal. This provides a single value for each proposal.
These single values are ranked within each selection panel—proposals are assessed and ranked in order of merit.

12. Ranking of Proposals
To determine the final ranked list, the selection panel considers and discusses proposals — particularly those around the funding margin. Selection panel members may revise the ranking of a proposal in response to a number of factors including:
Assessor reports.
Persuasive rejoinder arguments.
Panel discussions comparing the relative merits of proposals against the selection criteria.

13. August Meeting
Scores submitted by EAC1 used as initial ranking of all applications.
Panel debates each application, and scores (rankings) can be changed.
Final ranking used for budget allocation.
Consensus on scores for Fellowships.
Quotas applied to ECR applications.

14. Budget

15. Facts Range $30K to $500K per annum.
What’s allowable given in guidelines.
Panels view teaching relief differently.
Maximum of $50,000 for duration of project for travel.
ARC will not fund standard computers.
ARC will remove all salary increments.
Budget justification is closely scrutinised!

16. Assignment of Budgets
Once a selection panel has determined the final ranked list, funding recommendations are determined for all proposals in the fundable range.
Selection panel members consider in detail each proposal budget request and recommend an appropriate level of funding.
Selection panel members may recommend less than requested funding in cases where the proposal budget is considered to be inflated, is inadequately justified or includes items that are prohibited.
Each scheme’s funding rules set out what type of funding may be requested and any budget item restrictions.

17. Budget: Do Provide costing evidence for all major items.
Quantify requirements.
Relate budget items to timing and aims.
Highlight institutional support.
Provide alternative budget for Fellowship applications
(e.g. Research Associate or teaching relief).

18. Budget: Don’ts Double dip.
Over-price items, especially those with generally known costs.
Artificially expand Budget items – each one needs justification.
Claim for excessive numbers of personnel.
Ask for excessive travel support.

19. Using Budget to Write Application
How much can you ask for?
What do you want?
What will it be used for?
What will personnel do?
When will it be used?
Make it logical: Work within known bounds

20. High-Ranked Applications

21. High-Ranked Applications
Aimed at specialist and non-specialist assessors.
Present hypotheses/controversies and explain how the research will resolve them.
Ambitious goals and plausible but innovative approaches - argues the case high, but not so high it is unbelievable.
Compelling argument for why the topic demands funding now.
Places the research challenge in both national and international contexts.
Believable case in relation to national benefit.

22. High-Ranked Applications
Show how the research builds on the work of previous researchers - does not denigrate or minimize the contributions of other researchers.
Strong Chief Investigator track records.
Chief Investigators are well-placed in strong national and international research networks.
Research teams have the right combination of expertise to address the research challenge.
Includes Early Career Researcher Mentoring and postgraduate supervision.

23. High-Ranked Applications
Clearly indicate the logical structure of project.
Explain how methods relate to project aims.
Explain how hypotheses will be tested.
Outline what partner organisation facilities will be used.
Divide with subheadings: relate to your specific hypotheses.
Cover contingencies: try to predict
and address reviewers comments.

24. High-Ranked Applications
Well-written, easy to understand, interesting.
Balance technical detail (for specialist assessors) with accessibility (for non-specialist assessors).
Link research staff and students to work to be done - explain why these people are essential to the success of the project.
Link budget to timing.
Strong rejoinder - demonstrates how the project has progressed since submission of the application (publications, agreements); is considered in its tone (addresses assessor criticisms strongly but not aggressively).

25. Low-Ranked Applications

26. Low-Ranked Applications
Emphasis on data collection and/or contracted research.
Doesn’t highlight significance and/or context of the research topic.
Has no focusing questions or research hypothesis.
Doesn’t address the timeliness of the application. Why should this be funded now? What’s changed?
Too much technical jargon for non-specialist assessors to fully appreciate - clouds the case for a compelling research program.

27. Low-Ranked Applications
Cover too many aspects in insufficient detail (weakest link).
Inflated and implausible claims about expected outcomes.
Unsupported claims of excellence or progress (poor progress reports).
Inappropriate or weak Chief Investigators.
Lack of reference to other researchers.
Weak links to national and international research networks.

28. Low-Ranked Applications
Negative tone about the state of the research area in Australia.
Over inflated budget.
Poorly written and edited (spelling, grammar, incoherent passages, inappropriate cut and paste).
Unclear diagrams, photos, maps, etc.
Weak rejoinder.

29. Low-Ranked Applications
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

30. Additional Points

31. Progress Reports
Limit each progress report on current ARC grants to one page (including title, ARC details, names of CIs).
Reports can be important in supporting the grant proposal and in strengthening track record.
Uninformative progress reports reflect badly on applicants and application.
List all publications and conference papers emanating from these projects-in-progress.

32. Rejoinders Briefly reiterate any favorable comments.
Address all major comments and criticisms.
Point out inconsistencies between reports.
Correct erroneous track record comments.
Update Track and publication records.
Provide any relevant new research results.

33. DECRA Scheme Objectives
Support and advance promising early career researchers.
Promote enhanced opportunities for diverse career pathways.
Focus research effort in the National Research Priority areas to improve research capacity and policy outcomes.
Enable research and research training in high quality and supportive environments.

34. DECRAs Up to 200 DECRAs are available each year (almost double).
Proposals are ranked in order of merit, based on peer review assessment.
Publications are an important part of track record.
Project quality (50%), candidate (30%), research environment (10%), feasibility and benefit (10%).
Success rate in 2011 around 12%.

35. DECRA’s: Project Quality
Project quality is assessed in terms of:
Does the research address a significant problem?
Is the conceptual/theoretical framework innovative?
Will the project advance knowledge?
Are the project design and methods appropriate?
Does the project provide economic, environment or cultural/social benefit to Australia?
National Research Priorities.

36. DECRA’s: Candidate Project candidate is assessed in terms of:
Research opportunity and performance evidence (ROPE).
Capacity to undertake the research.

37. DECRA’s: Institutional Support
Institutional support is assessed in terms of:
A developing, supportive and high quality research environment.
Availability of facilities.
Are there adequate strategies to encourage the dissemination, commercialisation, where appropriate, and promotion of research outcomes.

38. Request not to Assess
Applicants may provide written notification to the ARC naming any person or persons whom they do not wish to assess their proposal. Normally, requests must contain detailed justification and be submitted to the ARC by the closing time for the proposal. The process for submitting these requests are set out in scheme funding rules. The responsible Executive Director considers each request and the justification provided, but may choose not to give effect to any a request.

39. Longer-term ARC Strategies
Persist sensibly DESPITE FAILURE:
If you were far from funding:
Build other funding opportunities.
Build links with more successful groups.
Focus on track record.
Aim to be back in the future.

40. Longer-term ARC Strategies
2) Continue to submit after success
Remember success is a stochastic process
DO NOT wait until your funding is about to run out
You can be involved in up to 4 LINKAGE grants
BUILD ON YOUR SUCCESS

41. Help each other submit excellent applications.
Final Thoughts
You’ve got to be in it to win it.
Identify what is unique about your project, and ‘sell’ it to the assessors.
Judge the page length of sections of the application in (general) relation to the percentage of assessment - don’t use 10% of the text for significance if this constitutes 40% of assessment.
Really nail the Summary of Proposal and Summary of National/Community Benefit boxes.
Get both specialist and non-specialist advice and comments on your draft.
Help each other submit excellent applications.