ARC Discovery Projects Workshop Faculty of Science Professor Helena Nevalainen, ARC College of...

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!

Key words are VIP

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+)



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


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.


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.


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.

ARC Discovery Projects Workshop Faculty of Science Professor Helena Nevalainen, ARC College of...

Documents

Transcript of ARC Discovery Projects Workshop Faculty of Science Professor Helena Nevalainen, ARC College of...