1. How to improve ARC-linkage 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

2. Process

3. What is the College? ARC COLLEGE 134 MEMBERS (was 77) 3 PANELS
(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 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

7. How much do they fund?

8. How much do they fund?

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. 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

15. WHAT ASSESSORS LOOK FOR
Investigator (20%)
they look at ROPE closely
maternity leave, cancer, etc. are taken seriously and taken into account
Project (50%)
Research Environment (10%)
Partner Organisation Commitment (30%)

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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
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. 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

20. 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

21. HOW TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS
NATIONAL BENEFIT
For Linkage grants: something about the importance of the
participation of the Partner Organisation in developing the
particular field of research
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

22. PARTNER ORGANISATION COMMITMENT AND COLLABORATION
Often reiterates (summarises) what is said in partner letter ..
Reminds reviewer of role of PO
What are they trying to get out of it.
Commitment: How much resource and help they will provide.
For small $$ contributions from small organisations emphasise proportion
of overall research budget, or extent of “in-kind”
For $0 cash contribution emphasise important involvement, vital partnerships

23. 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

24. ROLE OF PERSONNEL
Ensure that all required skills for project are covered
Include Partner Organisation research staff here if they have moderate track records. They do have to be PIs
Explain roles of APA(I) or APD(I) positions

25. 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

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

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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. Questions?