Arc projects and fellowships l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 24

ARC projects and Fellowships PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 84 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

ARC projects and Fellowships. Process: the black box revealed Track record: we believe you (mostly) Fellowships: where are you in your career path? Body of proposal: logical, exciting, a good story Budget tips: thrifty is trendy in the ARC

Download Presentation

ARC projects and Fellowships

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Arc projects and fellowships l.jpg

ARC projects and Fellowships

Process: the black box revealed

Track record: we believe you (mostly)

Fellowships: where are you in your career path?

Body of proposal: logical, exciting, a good story

Budget tips: thrifty is trendy in the ARC

Rejoinders: you must write one; short, not personal, opportunity to update


Panels relevant to biology membership available from www arc gov au l.jpg

Panels relevant to Biologymembership available from www.arc.gov.au

  • biological sciences & biotechnology (BSB)

  • engineering & environmental sciences (EES)

  • humanities & creative arts

  • mathematics, information & communication sciences

  • physics, chemistry & geoscience

  • social, behavioural & economic sciences


Assessors l.jpg

Assessors

EAC = college member, reviews >100 DP applications > 50 Linkage pa, can revise ranking ±, assigns intreaders for DPs (EAC 1). 13 members of BSB. One is selected as Chair. Each grant is read by 2 EAC members.

ED Executive Director, takes care of particular panel, plus other schemes. Assigns Ozreaders to particular grants taking advice from EAC members.

Ozreader = discipline expert drawn from pool, reviews ≤20 applications, weighting = no. of applications reviewed, prized for knowledge + willingness to rank a critical mass of applications. Assigned by ED

Intreaders = real experts (can be for specific aspects of applications), reviews ≤6 applications, weighting = no. of applications reviewed, prized for specialist knowledge. Not used for linkage.


Slide4 l.jpg

Key words are VIP


April in canberra l.jpg

April in Canberra

Ozreader 1

Ozreader 2

EAC 2

panel

ED

applicant

research branch

ARC

EAC 1

Intreader 1

Intreader 2


Process for assignment of applications to reviewers l.jpg

process for assignment of applications to reviewers

  • account for conflicts of interest due to institution or other factors

  • find most appropriate reviewer from pool

    • ED for EACs: based on broad area of responsibility of EACs

    • (KEYWORDS ARE VIP)

    • EAC1 for Intreaders: based on project summary and / or more intensive reading of application + knowledge of field, trawling through ARC data base, trawling through other data bases (such as pubmed), suggested reviewers from GAMS, (KEYWORDS ARE VIP)

    • ED for Ozreaders: pool of Ozreaders is more limited and areas of expertise are probably more carefully defined

    • (KEYWORDS ARE VIP)


Slide7 l.jpg

Ozreader 1

S & C

Ozreader 2

S & C

EAC 2

scores

panel

ED

applicant

research branch

ARC

EAC 1

scores

Intreader 1

S & C

Intreader 2

S & C

Intreader 3

S & C

Intreader 4

S & C

June


Slide8 l.jpg

Ozreader 1

S & C

Ozreader 2

S & C

EAC 2

scores

panel

ED

applicant

research branch

ARC

EAC 1

scores

Intreader 1

S & C

Comments only

Intreader 2

S & C

rejoinder

Intreader 3

S & C

Intreader 4

S & C

July


Late july l.jpg

Late July

EAC 2

panel

ED

applicant

research branch

ARC

EAC 1

Comments only

scores and ranking

rejoinder


Ranking l.jpg

ranking

  • 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).


Recommendation to the minister l.jpg

Recommendation to the Minister

EAC 2

$?

selection meeting

discussion

± reranking

panel

ED

applicant

research branch

ARC

EAC 1

Comments only

scores and ranking

rejoinder

Budget considered in detail at this point


Track record l.jpg

TRACK RECORD

  • Based on past

    • 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


B10 research record relative to opportunity 1 l.jpg

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)

focus on your impact directly (narrowly) on research outcomes in this half page, ie how you have changed/moved this area of research


B10 research record relative to opportunity 2 l.jpg

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+)

B10 research record relative to opportunity 2


B10 research record relative to opportunity 3 l.jpg

B10 research record relative to opportunity 3

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 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, other impact of articles

acceptance rate (if appropriate), other impact of conference papers

relevance/impact indices of other publications


B10 research record relative to opportunity 4 l.jpg

B10 research record relative to opportunity 4

Ten best career publications (B10.3)

Unlimited space:

Complete the citations with 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.


B10 research record relative to opportunity 5 l.jpg

B10 research record relative to opportunity 5

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

  • from instructions (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 6 l.jpg

B10 relative to opportunity 6

10.5 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 references of papers recently submitted.


B10 research record relative to opportunity 7 l.jpg

B10 research record relative to opportunity 7

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


Fellowships l.jpg

Fellowships

  • APD and APDI (3 years 100% ARC) $61,399

    • submission of PhD on or after early March 2006 (date to be advised, ie within 3 years of PhD submission)

    • Can have 75% (ARC) 25% (inst.) split for 4 years

    • Can be a fellowship on a DP with other investigators, or stand alone application (as ECR).

  • QEII $91,578 and APF $77,008 (5 years)

    • Not more than 8 years professional experience since PhD submission.

    • Can have 50:50 split in funding (ARC:Institution), but still 5 year full time on research.

    • APD, APDI can only nominate in or after their final year

    • Can have second award but must be 50:50 split

  • Future Fellowships ($95,000 or $135,000)

    • 5- to 20 years since submission


Body of proposal l.jpg

Body of proposal

Construct for the right audience (ie COEs and Aus readers)

Consider that COE member might not know the field

Make it exciting

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 weightings:

Eg LP=(TR*0.2) + (SI*0.25) + (Appr*0.2) + (NB*0.1) + (Alliance*0.25)


Budget tips l.jpg

Budget tips

No point going for teaching relief (BSB)

No point indexing salaries

Provide good justification (will reduce degree of cut depending on ranking)

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.


Timing l.jpg

Timing

ARC Linkage grants need significant lead times:

To establish relationship with partner

To negotiate partner’s desired outcomes

To negotiate partner’s investment

To allow for feedback internally etc, get it read by a previously successful applicant or EAC member.

I estimate 6 months minimum, more likely 12-18 months (also links with budgeting in partner organisations).


Rejoinders l.jpg

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.


  • Login