ARC Discovery Projects Workshop Faculty 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 begin
Professor Helena Nevalainen, ARC College of Experts, BSB Panel
Professor Bill Griffin, ARC College of Experts, PCE Panel
10 November 2009
Overview: some statistics to begin
Process: the black box revealed
Track record: we believe you (mostly)
Early Career Researchers/Fellowships: where are you in your career path?
Body of proposal: logical, exciting, a good story
Budget tips: thrifty is trendy in the ARC (covered in January Workshop)
Rejoinders: you must write one; short, not personal, opportunity to update
BSB - Biological Sciences & Biotechnology
EE - Engineering & Environmental Sciences
HCA - Humanities & Creative Arts
MIC - Mathematics, Information & Communication Sciences
PCE - Physical Chemical & Earth Sciences
SBE - Social, Behavioural & Sciences
- Researcher Track Record & capacity to undertake 40%
- Proposal Project Content
- Project Significance & Innovation 30%
- Project Approach 20%
- National Benefit 10%
- Each College of Experts member reviews >100 DP applications. Each grant is read by 2 College of Experts members.
- 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!
- 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.
Each reviewer’s weighted score is tallied
DP=(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)
Applications ranked 1 to N based on weighted scores (N = total number of grants reviewed by reviewer)
Application rank is converted to percent rank
Application percent rank is weighted according to the number of applications reviewed by the respective reviewers and a weighted average is calculated (WAPR).
scores and ranking
Budget considered in detail at this point
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
Think of a catchy title, eg.
“Body fluids: sweet protection against infection?”
Two 100-word summaries:
“Abstract” that needs to give a clear idea of what is proposed and why it is important (outcomes) -- written for a scientist.
Summary for propaganda purposes (for use by media when successful ones are announced -- simple language, emphasis on importance and potential outcomes (national benefit)
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.”
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
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)
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
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
10.5 other aspects of career…relevant to assessment
10.6 fellowship supplementary information
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
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:
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.
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.