1 / 11

NERC panel-beating tactics

NERC panel-beating tactics. Peter Clarke Civil Engineering and Geosciences Peter.Clarke@newcastle.ac.uk. Agenda. How NERC panels are made and operate Helping readers to like your proposal Responding to reviewers’ comments Panel games Discussion. Panel formation.

lesley
Download Presentation

NERC panel-beating tactics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NERC panel-beating tactics Peter Clarke Civil Engineering and Geosciences Peter.Clarke@newcastle.ac.uk

  2. Agenda • How NERC panels are made and operate • Helping readers to like your proposal • Responding to reviewers’ comments • Panel games • Discussion

  3. Panel formation • Large Grants / strategic research / other schemes • panel drawn from Peer Review College as appropriate • chaired by one of ‘Pool of Chairs’ • supported by NERC secretariat • Standard Grants / fellowships • five panel areas (A-E) • each panel is ~50% ‘core’ (standing) members (inc. chair), ~50% drawn ad hoc from PRC • applicants select the relevant panel for their proposal

  4. Panel areas

  5. Proposal assessment procedure Submit proposal Expert reviews PI response Introducers / readers Filter (panel) Panel ranking 15-20% >80% ~60% ~20%

  6. How a panel operates • Two ‘Introducers’ are assigned to each proposal • each returns a pre-score (0-10) to the secretariat • Proposals with both scores <7 are discarded • for successful proposals two ‘Readers’ are assigned • pre-scores are not announced • At the panel meeting: • Introducers, then Readers, comment on each proposal • following this qualitative discussion, a grade is assigned • once assigned, it may not be changed (but high/mid/low might) • Pathways to Impact is also graded as acceptable/unacceptable • at the end, proposals within each grade are ranked

  7. How to win friends • Be clear and simple • reviewers will have high/medium expertise,but Readers/Introducers (and the rest) may not • Be consistent • tie up loose ends between hypotheses, work packages, resources, and partners’ letters of support • Be realistic • a few judicious superlatives is excusable,but a proposal full of them is unrealistic

  8. Responding to reviewers • Be positive, don’t be stroppy • if the reviewers didn’t understand your proposal, you need to explain it better: the panel might not get it either • if the reviewers don’t see why it’s important, you need to present a better justification • if the reviewers are wrong , correct them gently (and provide references prove your argument) • Answer every point • don’t just play one reviewer off against another • don’t ignore ‘minor’ points – they might not be

  9. Panel psychology • Panel members don’t have time to read everything • summary, response to reviews, reviews if you’re lucky • The more members ‘get’ your proposal, the better • remember, few/none of them are experts in your topic • A good response to reviewers convinces non-experts • sometimes better even than a ‘good’ review • Panels should not bring up substantive new issues • but there’s not much you can do if it happens

  10. Dealing with rejection • Ask for the feedback • Go back to the reviews • Share the pain • Keep your Co-Is / partners / collaborators informed • Try again somehow

  11. Dealing with success • Ask for the feedback anyway • Keep your Co-Is / partners / collaborators informed • Start spending • Share the love • Sadly, track record doesn’t count much next time

More Related