Post on 18-Dec-2015
ARC Discovery Projects WorkshopFaculty of Science
Professor Helena Nevalainen, ARC College of Experts, BSB Panel
Professor Bill Griffin, ARC College of Experts, PCE Panel
10 November 2009
ARC Discovery Projects and Fellowships
Overview: some statistics to beginProcess: the black box revealedTrack record: we believe you (mostly)Early Career Researchers/Fellowships: where are you in your
career path?Body of proposal: logical, exciting, a good storyBudget tips: thrifty is trendy in the ARC (covered in January
Workshop)Rejoinders: you must write one; short, not personal,
opportunity to update
Discovery Projects: No. Applications & Results (From ARC Website)
ARC as a whole
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
No. 3,441 3,766 4,047 4,121 4,164 4,085
No. Funded
1,053 917 822 878 845 925
Total Funds
297.5 Million
273.6 Million
274.4 Million
300.8 Million
288.4 Million
325.6 Million
ARC Success
Rate
30.9% 24.5% 20.4% 21.4% 20.4% 22.7%
ARC Panels
BSB - Biological Sciences & BiotechnologyEE - Engineering & Environmental SciencesHCA - Humanities & Creative ArtsMIC - Mathematics, Information & Communication SciencesPCE - Physical Chemical & Earth SciencesSBE - Social, Behavioural & Sciences
Discovery Projects:Application Results by Panel
Panel 2008 2009 2010
BSB 21.4% 18.4% 22.0%
EE 19.6% 20.5% 23.2%
HCA 21.0% 19.5% 24.9%
MIC 21.2% 23.2% 21.6%
PCE 22.6% 19.5% 22.8%
SBE 21.7% 21.7% 22.5%
Overall 21.4% 20.4% 22.7%
Discovery Project Proposal Selection Criteria
Criteria Weighting_______________________________________________________________
- Researcher Track Record & capacity to undertake 40% the research
- Proposal Project Content
- Project Significance & Innovation 30%
- Project Approach 20%
- National Benefit 10%__________________
100%
What happens to your Proposal?
- Each College of Experts member reviews >100 DP applications. Each grant is read by 2 College of Experts members.
- Ozreader = discipline expert drawn from pool, reviews ≤20 applications, Assigned by ARC Executive Director
- Intreaders = real experts (can be for specific aspects of applications), reviews ≤6 applications.
- ARC Executive Director takes care of particular panel, plus other schemes. Assigns Ozreaders to particular grants taking advice from College of Experts (EAC) members. But this is done mainly on the codes and keywords you provide!
What happens to your proposal?• You get comments from readers, write a rebuttal
• Panel members see each other’s scores, and the rebuttals, adjust to minimise differences
• ARC computes WAPR (rankings)
• August meeting -- start with highest WAPR and work down until $$$ are gone -- best funding for highest-ranked proposals
• Winners notified -- October/November
Ranking
1. Each reviewer’s weighted score is talliedDP=(TR*0.4) + (S/I*0.3) + (Appr*0.2) + (NB*0.1)LP=(TR*0.2) + (ISI*0.25) + (Appr*0.2) + (NB*0.1) + (Commit*0.25)
2. Applications ranked 1 to N based on weighted scores (N = total number of grants reviewed by reviewer)
3. Application rank is converted to percent rank
1. Application percent rank is weighted according to the number of applications reviewed by the respective reviewers and a weighted average is calculated (WAPR).
Recommendation to the Minister
research branch ARC panelED
EAC 2
EAC 1applicant
Comments only
rejoinder
scores and ranking
discussion± reranking
selection meeting $?
Budget considered in detail at this point
A Discovery Project Application-Proposal is written like a top journal article from Introduction to end of the Method section (include method analysis)-Is an academic argument on how to advance the academic field/knowledge to prove this is a significant idea(s)-Has specific, consistent, meaningful research objectives; Research Question/hypotheses derived from a critical literature review; RQ’s matched to studies proposed in the Approach-Proposal should be consistent with scoring of selection criteria: - Track Record (eg carefully compose team), S&I (eg do a crit. lit review), Approach (eg specific & matched to research questions or hypotheses), & National Benefit (application of the results)-Do multiple drafts, get feedback, do a pilot study – needs to be written very well so it is good relative to the best-Based on Funding Rules & Instructions to Applicants
http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/dp/dp_fundingrules.htm
Discovery Project Application Form
PART A – Administrative Summary
A2 – Proposal Title
A5 – Summary of Proposal (100 words)
Summary of National/Community Benefit (100 words)
A6 – Keywords, Research Classifications
PART B - Personnel, including Track Record and Research Record Relative to Opportunity
PART C – Budget
PART D – Report on any current ARC Projects
PART E – Project Description
Proposal Title & 100 Word Summary
Think of a catchy title, eg.
“Body fluids: sweet protection against infection?”
Two 100-word summaries: 1. “Abstract” that needs to give a clear idea of what is
proposed and why it is important (outcomes) -- written for a scientist.
2. Summary for propaganda purposes (for use by media when successful ones are announced -- simple language, emphasis on importance and potential outcomes (national benefit)
TRACK RECORD
• Based on past achievement– high level of input from broad base of outside sources (eg
journals, societies…)• Correlates with other criteria, as well
– feasibility (approach)– significance and innovation
• TR scores tend to add up, ie weighted to higher track records of CIs and PIs (rather than averaged)
• plenty of opportunity to make clear in application
Papers/yr Papers/yr 1st author Journal PhD stud. ECR Abst.Major
impactOther sign
SCORE
quality-adusted
(Teaching) (Research) impact current on fieldtrack
record
<1=70,
1=75, 2=80, <2=70, 2=75,
4=80, >0.5=2,
<0.5=-1, 0 to 3 ≥2=2 2 >2/yr=1 (reality check)
4=85, ≥5=90
6=85, ≥8 = 90 none=-2 (% in HI) >5=4
>4=2, <1=-1 0 to 2 0 to 3
AB 90 -1 2 4 2 1 2 100 CD 77 2 1 1 1 82 E 82 0 -1 2 4 2 3 90 F 81 2 3 1 1 88 86G 75 -1 2 3 2 1 1 83 H 80 2 1 1 1 85 I 85 -1 2 1 1 1 89 J 80 -1 2 1 82 K 83 1 1 2 1 1 89 L 85 -1 1 1 1 1 2 90 M 85 -1 1 1 1 87 N 85 -1 2 1 2 1 90 O 82 -1 2 83 P 70 1 1 72 Q 83 1 2 1 87 90R 82 -1 2 1 1 85 S 89 -1 1 1 1 1 92 T 90 -1 2 2 2 2 97 U 82 -1 2 1 84 V 86 -1 1 2 1 89 W 78 2 1 2 1 84 X 83 1 1 85 Y 82 2 1 2 1 88 83
B10 research record relative to opportunity 1
• read and follow the instructions• most significant contributions to this research field
(B10.1)
– don’t hold back (we will believe you, generally)(but over-the-top is picked up and discounted)– focus on your impact directly (narrowly) on
research outcomes in this half page, ie how you have changed/moved this area of research
• Do not do this: “I have carried out research in area x for 20 years and have published significant papers, and have obtained 20 mill in research funds blah blah.”
• Do this:– I discovered x (see papers 1,2,3) which resulted in an
international effort to find y (citations n).– I discovered that a results in b such that the previously
accepted paradigm was incorrect (papers 4,5,6). This has led to numerous other groups….
– The outcomes of my research have resulted in z being used by …… in a commercial……. (evidence, see publications 5,6,7+)
B10 research record relative to opportunity 2
B10 research record relative to opportunity 3
Significant publications in last 5 yrs (B10.2)• Ensure that authorship role is clear on all publications
(account for differences in conventions of discipline, journal, team)– do not assume all reviewers will know conventions– place explanation in an obvious place
• Enhance basic information with evidence of impact (think RQF, ERA whatever), succinctly include information on:– reviews, sales, other impact of books– impact factors, citations (H-index), other impact of articles– acceptance rate (if appropriate), other impact of conference papers– relevance/impact indices of other publications
B10 research record relative to opportunity 4
Ten best career publications (B10.3)• Unlimited space:• Provide clear evidence of impact (think again of RQF):
– number of times publication has been cited, referred to, etc…
– any type of (positive) editorial reaction to publication– practical outcomes– at some point it would be worth giving average citation
rates compared to average in field etc.
B10 research record relative to opportunity 5
10.4 other evidence of impact and contributions• half page• continue theme begun in 10.1, broadening emphasis to wider
recognition of your research record• prizes, awards, patents, experience in industry, editorial
boards…– reviewer is good, associate editor (expert panel) is better– member of society is good, officer is better– participant in conference is good, organiser is better– presentations are good, invitations are better
• broader recognition of your research (eg consultancies)• place all achievements in context, eg
– award given every 5 years– first non-American to receive…
B10 relative to opportunity 610.5 other aspects of career…relevant to assessment• half page• use as required• be clear, succinct and reasonable
– major illnesses or injuries– relocations– time off for maternity/paternity leave– changes of career, research directions– Other
– Can take the opportunity to present reviews of papers recently submitted.
B10 research record relative to opportunity 7
10.6 fellowship supplementary information• one page• fellowships are good additions to applications• follow instructions, addressing all points• Can be at same institution but give strong reasons
No. & success Rate of ECR-OnlyProposals (≤ 5 years since PhD) for 2010
Discipline ECR-Only Proposals Received
ECR-Only Proposals Approved for
Funding
Success rate
ECR-Only Proposals: % of Total Approved
funding
BSB 97 19 19.6% 10.3%
EE 89 15 16.9% 10.4%
HCA 114 13 11.4% 7.1%
MIC 130 21 16.2% 13.5%
PCE 93 15 16.1% 8.5%
SBE 111 15 13.5% 6.9%
All 634 98 15.5% 9.4%
2010 Discovery Project Fellowships
Need excellent scores on both (1) Project and (2) Fellow
- Australian Postdoc Fellowships (≤3 years since PhD): - 2010 Success Rate = 17.1% - Can be 3 years (100% ARC Salary Support) or 4 years (75%)
- Australian Research Fellows/Queen Elizabeth II Fellows - ≤ 8 years since PhD, also ≤ 13 years if previously had ARF/QEII: - 2010 Success Rate = 17.8% - Can be 50% ARC Salary Support. Has a much better success rate
- Australian Professional Fellowships - ≤ 13 years since PhD - 2010 Success Rate = 16.3% - Can be 50% ARC Salary Support. Has a much better success rate
Body of proposal• Construct for the right audience (ie College of Experts, Oz-
readers and Int-readers)• Consider that CoE member might not know the field• Make it exciting -- but watch out for obvious hype….• Have clear aims and hypotheses linked to approach• Use preliminary data (VIP), but make sure that it reproduces
well in copies, do not use small fonts• Show how your previous research is relevant and how you are
leading the field• Keep reminding yourself of the assessment weightings:
Rejoinders
• Always provide one
• Usually used to discard or reduce weighting of an assessor
that may have been too harsh.
• It does make an impact so construct it carefully.
• Do not get personal.
• Can provide additional findings or publications.
• Update your progress on the topic since submission.
Budget tips
• No point going for teaching relief (BSB)
• No point indexing salaries
• Provide good justification (will reduce degree of cut depending on
ranking) -- including the roles of requested Research Assistants, etc
• MU very good (uniquely?) at providing HDR scholarships -- don’t request
them, but put them in as University’s contribution
• Do not make project absolutely dependent on a large budget.
• Remember average cut is about 40% (BSB), average budget is about 300-
350K over 3 years.