Recurring Issues in ARC applications

1. Recurring Issues in ARC applications • Over broad topics • Design of projects • Emphasis on data collection • Lack of attention to methodology • Unrealistic budgets • Non-respondent assessors

2. Top ranking applications will • Balance technicality and accessibility • Balance ambitious goals and plausibility • Present problems/controversies • Show how momentum of research requires funding now • Show how Australian work fits internationally

3. Top ranking applications will (2) • Explain relationship to national interest • Take responsible but imaginative approaches • Have realistic but impressive academic outcomes • Present useful progress reports on previous grants • Have a responsible and plausible budget • Use the rejoinder wisely

4. Low ranking applications will • Emphasise collection of data rather than solution of a problem • Make implausible or vague claims re outcomes • Provide no evidence re claims of excellence or progress • Have weak links with national or int’l research networks • Involve ‘backwater’ research with no momentum

5. Low ranking applications will (2) • Set a negative tone re state of subject in Australia • Contain many spelling/grammatical errors • Be unedited, repetitive and squeeze too much text on the page • Have lots of technical jargon • Waste the rejoinder

6. REVIEW PROCESS `(slides courtesy of Prof Martin Banwell) • 2 Panel members, 2 OZ readers, 4 internat assessors • target likely panel members expertise • use language for non-expert • why should the work be funded NOW (urgency) • Overall ranking is important (not scores) • Get feedback • from colleagues outside your core research area ie non-experts • colleagues who have acted as assessors • ECRs - aim to have complete proposal ready for review by end Jan at the very latest

7. REVIEW PROCESS: Keywords, FORC codes • Broad general keywords • test effectiveness of keywords by searching literature online • target general expertise of assessor with keywords • 100 words summary • vary from clear, intelligible to incomprehensible • ask a non-expert to read lay person version

8. FEEDBACK Graphical feedback on relative ranking in 4 categories • If unsuccessful, address categor(ies) that ranked poorly • Track Record 40% • Significance & Innovation 30% • ensure that this is 1-2 pages minimum • Approach 20% • National benefit 10% • link to National priority areas • avoid exaggerated, grandiose claims that research will add to economy etc

9. CI, PI, ECR COMBINATIONS • PI contributions • < 5 % closely scrutinised-evidence of significant contribution? • is CI simply using PI track record to bump up application with no real • contribution from PI • state explicitly intellectual contribution from CI/PI in both budget and • proposal • ECR • sole ECR generally better • must have reasonable track record of some publications • ECR/established CI combinations • be clear what each investigator brings to project • CI/CI combinations • real collaborations required • between institutions - is this simply a way around DP limits?

10. 3 YEAR VERSUS 5 YEAR GRANTS • Limited funds for 5 years: established research teams • Justify why 5 years required vs 3 years • address stated criteria • include timeline • if insufficient funds available for 5 years, panel will need to judge whether project is achievable in 3 years: be careful in budget/timeline • Grants > $350,000 fully justify • panel will need to judge whether research can still be performed if reduced funds available • fully justify large numbers of personnel • remember that Australian colleagues will be assessors and are aware of costs

11. FELLOWSHIPS • Answer mobility question carefully • If staying at ANU need to present strong arguments • CI’s applying with APD/ARF as applicant also need to address this carefully especially if Fellow is already working in group • APDs • Lack of mobility, perceived continuation of same work as PhD, result in low ranks • Highlight any diverse experience and contributions • Must have publications from PhD plus postdocs • ARF/QEIII • Extremely competitive • Track record: need to demonstrate explicitly some independent contributions post PhD • Research Environment : Highlight benefits but also what ARF/QEII will bring to environment to enhance research

12. Future Fellowships Aim= to attract best and brightest mid career researchers (200 pa for 5 years) • Laureate Fellowships aim = to attract research leaders (15 pa)

13. REJOINDERS • Follow Research Services Advice • be succinct • highlight and respond directly to any criticisms • What not to do • be hostile and aggressive • use statements like “the referee did not understand/read the proposal” - refute an erroneous assessment with scientific fact • try and hide any negatives by repeating positive statements form other reports • Remember.... • for your application to be pushed up in the ranking, someone else must come down • panel has >600 reports plus assessments to read - need focused, well-argued rejoinders

14. ASSESSORS (ie you) • Unhelpful assessments • very positive comments and low rankings • database reviewed to remove “unhelpful”, tardy assessors • If you are asked to be an assessor • incorporate comments that will provide the applicant with overall feedback on relative ranking • provide enough information to give applicant a chance to respond in rejoinder • give advice about matters to address in rejoinders • OZ readers/panel members • aware of budget issues and research funding in Australia • ambit/inflated claims and projected budgets readily identified (conference travel, teaching relief, support costs)

15. LINKAGE GRANTS • Track record not as important (20%) • good opportunity for ECRs or weaker track record • <$50,000 not reviewed externally • APAIs • emphasise research training aspect (environment, track record in supervision, completions etc) • ensure that project is training and not contract work for an RA • Significance & Innovation 25% Track Record 20% • Approach 25% Industry Commit 20% • National Benefit 10%