1. ARC – The Rejoinder Process
Maya Roberts
Senior Grants Officer
Research Services Office

2. Overview of ARC Funding Process
Source:

3. Rejoinders Are part of the grant assessment process
Two types of assessors:
two College of Experts members (General Assessors), and
at least two Detailed Assessors (aka external assessors)
Give applicants an opportunity to respond to assessment comments made by external assessors
Rejoinders are not seen by external assessors but are considered by the ARC College of Experts Panel (CoE) or Selection Advisory Committee (SAC)

4. Assessment process
CoE members assigned to discipline panels, which vary by scheme
Two General Assessors assigned for each proposal – Carriage 1 and Other Carriage
Carriage 1 assigns Detailed Assessors
Carriages provide a single preliminary score on A to E rating scale
Detailed Assessors comments (not scores) provided to applicant for rejoinder

5. Assessment process
Carriages view Detailed Assessor comments, scores and rejoinder, review initial scores and assessment, discuss assessment with other carriages, and provide final ratings
Proposal score is used to rank all proposals before meeting of General Assessors at the Selection Meeting to discuss proposals and to make recommendations re funding

6. Rating Scale Rating Scale Criteria Recommendation A
Outstanding: Of the highest quality and at the forefront of research in the field. Approximately 10% of Proposals should receive ratings in this band.
Recommended unconditionally B
Excellent: Of high quality and strongly competitive. Approximately 15% of Proposals should receive ratings in this band.
Strongly support recommendation of funding C
Very Good: Interesting, sound and compelling. Approximately 20% of Proposals should receive ratings in this band.
Support recommendation of funding with reservation D
Good: Sound, but lacks a compelling element. Approximately 35% of Proposals are likely to fall into this band.
Unsupportive of recommendation for funding E
Uncompetitive: Uncompetitive and has significant weaknesses or more fatal flaws. Approximately 20% of Proposals are likely to fall into this band.
Not recommended for funding

7. Scoring and Ranking
Each proposal is scored and a ranked list derived for each panel
Source: ARC Selection Meetings presentation by Dr Dan, 8 June 2016

8. RMS Proposal view – CoE member
Source: ARC Selection Meetings presentation by Dr Dan, 8 June 2016

9. The Rejoinder Submission Process
Notification
When assessor reports are released, a notice is posted on the ARC website and a network message sent to the RSO
The first named CI also receives an automated
Access and submission
Assessor reports and rejoinders forms are accessed and submitted via RMS

10. The Rejoinder Submission Process
Period
Usually 2 weeks to respond
Internal closing deadline set to allow RSO to review and submit rejoinders to ARC
Need to submit rejoinder in RMS to RSO
Late rejoinders are not accepted by the ARC
RMS Instructions
PDF Format (453KB) – Word Format (246KB)

11. ARC Rejoinder Instructions
Be clear and concise
5000 character limit (including spaces)
No pictures, graphs, links, or other documents can be included
Clarify any perceived weaknesses
Directly address assessor comments
Be constructive

12. ARC Rejoinder Instructions
Rejoinders should draw only on information already provided in the proposal
Rejoinders should not include:
new information including new research results/methods
reference to any new awards, appointments or publications since submission
any information that was left out of or incorrectly entered in the original proposal
any information relevant to eligibility

13. Bad Assessments Respond via rejoinder
If you feel that an assessment is unethical or provided by a conflicted assessor, you need to act promptly and contact the RSO to ask that the assessment be reviewed by the ARC during the rejoinder period.
Note the assessment panel will disregard a patently unfair assessment

14. Some Preparation tips…
Advise other investigators in advance when the assessor reports and rejoinder period is expected to commence
Start preparing your response early
Ensure you address the major criticisms
Refer back to the application as required
Example
Assessor C: The proposal suggests that PI Bloggs will play only a minor scientific role…
Response: In relation to Assessor C’s comment re PI Bloggs’s involvement, she will have significant scientific input into the project and provide supervision of research personnel as detailed at pages 56 and 99 of the proposal.

15. Some Preparation tips…
Always be professional and polite, even if you feel the assessors have not been!
Be assertive, when required – not aggressive
Be mindful of your tone
Remember the external assessors don’t see your response – only the CoE/SAC do
The assessment panel will disregard or downgrade an unfair assessment
Is there a better word? Use a Thesaurus

16. Useful ARC links Rejoinders ARC Funding Process Assessor Resources
includes guidelines e.g. dos and don’ts for assessors
examples of good and bad assessments
Assessor Handbook
Instructions for Detailed and General Assessors
PDF format (1MB) – Word format (183KB)
Good Luck!