1. How Research Environment Matters
Prof Jim Mitchell

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

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

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

5. 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)

6. 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?

7. 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.

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

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

11. Process

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. How much do we fund?

17. How much do we fund?

18. How much do we fund?

19. 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

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

21. Do we fund equitably?

22. Do they fund equitably?

23. Do they fund equitably?

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

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

26. 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,

27. 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

28. 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.)

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

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

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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. Questions?