Science Foundation Ireland R esearch F rontiers P rogramme (RFP)

SFI - Research for Ireland's Future

Science Foundation Ireland

Research Frontiers Programme (RFP)


Overview

• Introduction

• Eligibility

• Proposal Submission & Structure

• Review Process

• Application Preparation

• Q & A


Introduction

Objectives:

• To support innovative, cutting-edge and internationally competitive

research in a broad range of disciplines in Science, Mathematics and

Engineering.

• To establish a mechanism of looking forward to allow for changes in

strategic areas in the future.

• To provide a broad base of support to underpin the strategic areas of

Biotechnology, Information & Communications Technology, and

Sustainable Energy & Energy-Efficient Technologies.

• To provide advanced education and training for young researchers in a

wide variety of areas.


Eligibility

Applicant must be:

a member of the academic staff (permanent or with a contract that covers the period of the grant), or

• a contract researcher recognised by the research body as an independent investigator who will have an independent office and research space at the host research body for which he/she will be fully responsible, for at least the duration of the SFI grant, or

• an individual who will be recognised by the research body upon receipt of the SFI grant as a contract researcher as defined above. The applicant does not necessarily need to be employed by the research body at the time of proposal submission.

Research body endorsement certifies that applicant meets eligibility criteria


Applicant must hold a Ph.D., M.D. or equivalent, by closing date of

Call

Applicant is expected to have the capability and authority to mentor and

supervise postgraduate students and postdoctoral researchers

This competition is intended for independent researchers only

Eligibility

Where an applicant fails to meet the eligibility criteria, the application will be deemed ineligible and will not be accepted for review.


Eligibility – October 2008 RFP Deadline

Applicants, or co-applicants, who submit an application to the SFI PI or PICA Autumn 2008 Call are not entitled to submit a concurrent application to the Research Frontiers Programme.

Submission of an application to the Research Frontiers Programme may affect eligibility to submit to other SFI Programmes – please refer to appropriate Call document.

For example, applicants who submit a proposal to the Research Frontiers Programme will not be eligible to submit an application (as applicant or co-applicant) to the PI or PICA Spring Call 2009.


Investigators named as an applicant, or co-applicant, on a proposal currently under review (under the SFI PI, PICA, PIYRA, Research Professor Programme ) are not entitled to submit a concurrent application to the Research Frontiers Programme.

Investigators who have received an SFI Award (start date as per Letter of Offer), as either PI or co-PI (under the PI, PICA, PIYRA, Research Professor Programme) during the 6 MONTHS prior to the Call deadline are not entitled to submit an application to the Research Frontiers Programme.

Eligibility – Advance notice for Autumn 2009 RFP Deadline


Proposal Submission

Following submission, an application cannot be withdrawn and modified for resubmission in the same Call.

Proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted.

• Research Frontiers Programme is now a ONE STAGE Process, with the elimination of the pre-proposal stage

• Applications will only be accepted through the Award Management System (AMS)

• Applicants may only submit ONE proposal as applicant

Note: No restriction on the number of proposals on which an individual can act as a collaborator


Application Preparation

• All text should be written in single-spaced using at least 12 point Times New Roman font, or similar, with at least 2.54 cm (1 in) right and left margins.

• The number of words/pages in any given section must not exceed the specifications.

• Appendices, or other unsolicited documentation, e.g. equipment quotations, are not permitted.

• All attachments in the AMS must be submitted in Adobe PDF format and should not exceed 2MB.

• Do not cut and paste anything to the ‘Offline Assistant’ directly from Microsoft Word, HTML code, or other code. Paste to a ‘Wordpad’ text file, and then cut and paste to the ‘Offline Assistant’.

Applications not adhering to the specified guidelines (e.g. page limit specifications), or with incomplete content, will be deemed ineligible and will not be accepted for review.


Proposal Structure

Proposal Title

Applicant Details

Collaborator Details (if any)

Lay Abstract (max. 100 words)

Scientific Abstract (max. 100 words)

Scientific Content (max. 8 pages)

References (no page limitations)

CV – Applicant and Collaborator(s) (max. 2 pages; MUST be included for

EACH collaborator)

Support of Applicant (current and pending)

Budget (staff, equipment, materials and travel) & justification (max. 1 page)

Letter(s) of Support (MUST be included for each collaborator)


Application: Scientific Content

1. What is the question this proposal addresses? Include research aim, objectives, hypotheses, as appropriate. The objectives

should be coherent & well planned and should be linked with real deliverables

2. Why is this question important? Include the background for context; details of the state of the art in the research

field should be included (with references)

3. How will the question be addressed? Include details of the methodology. Timelines, milestones and expected outputs

for the proposed research should be included, as appropriate.

Scientific Content - 8 pages max.


What is your recent record of accomplishment in research that would suggest that you can achieve success in addressing this problem?

Also clearly identify the role of collaborator(s) in the project

What is the value of this research to Ireland?

Make the case for the value of the research to Ireland Include within the 8-page limit; do not exceed 250 words

Application: Scientific Content

Structure proposal under above headings

References NOT included within 8 page limit


CV (to include)

• List of most relevant publications from the last 3 years, in order of significance; include author(s), title of article, name of publication, date of publication and details (such as volume, pages)

• Summary of total number of publications (categorised as journal publications, refereed conference proceedings, books, book chapters, etc.)

• List of patents, granted or pending, including application number, title, year and assigned inventors

• Brief grant support history

• List of awards, honours and professional activities

• Details of any significant delays in research activity

Note: List of current and pending research funding of APPLICANT should NOT be included in the CV (details are captured in ‘Support’ section in AMS).

CV of the applicant (max. 2 pages) must be submittedCV of each named collaborator (max. 2 pages) must be submitted


• Awards may be up to €250,000 (total direct costs) and may be up to 4 years duration

• A minimum of ONE postgraduate student must be recruited on the grant

• Research Frontiers Programme awards do not fund the salary or benefits of the applicant and/or collaborators

• Budget allocation for equipment is normally up to €25,000 - if funding for a larger equipment item is requested, this must be fully justified

• Budget justification ONE page max. (do NOT include summary table, this is generated separately from data entered into AMS)

Budget

Institutional submission of an application through the AMS serves asresearch body approval of the requested budget.


Letters of Support

• Letter of support from ALL named collaborator(s) MUST be

included

• Full details of the nature of the collaboration or intended support

should be provided

• Letters MUST be signed.

Applications with incomplete content will be deemed ineligible and will not be accepted for review.


Review Process

Panel-based peer review process

ALL international reviewers

Proposals are reviewed by at least 3 peers with broad expertise in the research area

Each reviewer will review several proposals

Reviewers who provide written reviews will also serve as panel members

Selection of reviewers is at the sole and exclusive discretion of SFI


• Profile & Spectrum of Reviewers

• Research intensive in areas of panel emphasis

• Department chairs with broader scientific experience

• Experience with review in panel setting

• Mostly from academia with occasional industry reviewers

• Balance of younger and more senior reviewer-scientists

• Span multidisciplinary strands

• SFI considers the panel recommendations when making funding decisions

• Final funding decisions are at the sole and exclusive discretion of the SFI

• Following conclusion of the review process applicants will receive feedback -

individual reviewers’ and panel comments

Review Process


Review Panels

Astronomy (AST)

Biochemistry (BIC)

Biomolecular Medicine & Therapeutics (BMT)

Cancer (CAN)

Chemistry – Analytical and Physical (CAP)

Chemistry – Synthetic (CHS)

Computer Science (CMS)

Ecology, Evolutionary, Organismal Biology & Environmental Science (EOB)

Engineering – Mech (ENM)

Engineering – Electronic/Electrical & Computer (ECE)

Genetics (GEN)

Geoscience (GEO)

Materials (MTR)

Mathematics (MTH)

Neuroscience (NES)

Physics (PHY)


When considering the most appropriate panel for the proposal, applicants should consider:

• The core topic area and research activity of the proposal.

• The research area where significant scientific advances are likely to be made as a result of the award.

• The journals in which the outcomes of the proposed research are likely to be published.

• The appropriateness of the likely panel members to review the proposal.

Review Panels


Review Criteria

• Quality, significance, novelty and relevance of the proposed research, including the potential to advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across other fields of science, mathematics and engineering.

• Quality, significance and relevance of the recent research record of the applicant (commensurate with career stage).

• Quality, significance, and relevance of the proposed research’s potential contribution to fields of science, mathematics or engineering, and consequently to the economic, scientific, and educational development of Ireland.


Think through research project and methodology with care

Review Criteria:Quality, significance, novelty & relevance of research

Reviewer Comments:

“ The proposal does not test a specific hypothesis but rather takes an exploratory approach . . .”

“ The goals appear diffuse & the proposal is unfocused . . ”

“ There are no plans for validation…..”

“The fieldwork plan is rather unfocused & lacks a clearly defined strategy ….”

“ It is difficult to judge the quality of the scientific work that will arise from this project due to the lack of specifics and the absence of proposals for a methodology…”

“ The applicant has provided sufficient background, preliminary data & detail of the analyses to be carried out…”


What is state-of-the-art?

Reviewer Comments:

“ Is the applicant aware of developments in the field ?… [S/he] has failed to cite some of the key papers of recent years and this reviewer wonders about the competitiveness of this submission …”

“ Although the applicant has identified an interesting area of research, the scientific questions to be addressed are obscured by the apparent unawareness of the applicant about the area of the proposed inquiry..”

“ The project fails to present the original and novel points of the proposed research… the literature cited is mostly old….”

“ The proposed work is original and a natural progression from recent work in the field to which the applicant has made major contributions..”



Reviewer Comments:

“ The proposal is not well written & suffers from misspellings; in short it seems more like a rough draft..”

“ Figures would have helped this reviewer in understanding the complex molecular interactions discussed & proposed..”

“ The proposal as written is dense & jargon-filled..”

“ Only 12 lines of the proposal are dedicated to the approach..”

“ The proposal is rambling, uses vague language at key points, and proposes the use of many outdated approaches..”

“The questions, hypotheses and methods are clearly articulated..”

Craft the proposal carefully



Be realistic!

Reviewer Comments:

“ The approach is both doable and timely … experiments are well-described..”

“ The rationale for a ‘literature search’ is not justified & is inappropriate with the time-scale of the project … get the student in the lab!”

“ The Gantt chart was useful at mapping both students to the project aims..”

“ The simulation component of the proposal is a considerably larger undertaking than the applicant has suggested..”



Review Criteria: Research record of the applicant

Track record appropriate to proposal

Reviewer Comments:

“ Well established investigator, who is well suited to perform the proposed studies…”

“ Applicant has an established track record in the field, has appropriate collaborations in place and has conducted pilot studies so that the probability of results of significant impact arising from the work is high…”

“ Applicant has a very modest publication and citation record. None of these are on …….., no first-authored papers are listed, and his most current publications are in areas well away from the proposed study..”


Track record as an independent PI is career-stage appropriate

Reviewer Comments:

“ The applicant has Prof. [X] as a collaborator who is a former post doctoral supervisor. It is anticipated that results from this work will be published with the new PI as senior corresponding author ..”

“…relatively junior… but promising young investigator in a good position to undertake the research..”

“Applicant is in the early stages of her career but has a very strong and relevant track record and is well placed to undertake the work..”



Track record of collaborators is significant

Reviewer Comments:

“ Dr. [X] has brought onboard excellent collaborators to see the research through and extract the most information from it..”

“ A clinical/pharmaceutical collaboration would also significantly strengthen the proposal..”



Recent publications/productivity and relevance are important

Reviewer Comments:

“ There is significant enthusiasm . . . a more junior applicant with a good track record, including a number of recent and pending papers in the area..”

“ Applicant does not have a first or corresponding author publication since 2002 relevant to the research area …”

“ Applicant has an impressive record of achievement with a large number of high quality papers that have been cited a significant number of times as the standard in the field..”



Impact on Ireland & Irish society

Quality of life of Ireland’s citizens

Education & training of Ireland’s students

Career development of researchers

Development of Irish industry & economy

Review Criteria: Research’s potential contribution


Application Preparation: Points to consider

Read the Call documents carefully & check the FAQs

Get input from colleagues - ask them to be critical

At least consider the opinions of your colleagues

Read a successful proposal

Ask someone to read the proposal before it is submitted

Check all the references carefully

Spell check the proposal


Write for the actual reviewers

Remember that ALL reviewers will NOT be experts in your

particular field

Proposal may be reviewed by an individual who is a expert in the research area

Try to avoid jargon as far as possible

If a similar proposal has been submitted before, make sure previous reviewers’ comments have been considered



Ask yourself, does my proposal address the criteria?

• Is the novelty/originality clearly spelled out UP FRONT?

• Is the motivation/hypothesis clear?

• Are my methods/work plan for addressing the problem clear?

Think carefully about whether what is promised can be delivered

Is your time commitment clear and realistic?

Provide evidence of collaborations - if these are critical

Bland ‘Letters of Support’ are not useful

Avoid inflated claims on your CV



Proposal Submission 17 October 2008 at

13:00

Documents located on website www.sfi.ie

Submit questions to [email protected]

http://www.sfi.ie/

Science Foundation Ireland R esearch F rontiers P rogramme (RFP)

Documents

Transcript of Science Foundation Ireland R esearch F rontiers P rogramme (RFP)