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

2. Process

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. How much do they fund? Summary of Outcomes
The ARC received a total of 699 proposals for Linkage Projects 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%

8. How much do they fund? Approved Funding by Discipline Panel Panel*
Table 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

9. Do they fund equitably?

10. Do they fund equitably?

11. The Proposal

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

13. 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,

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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

25. Questions?