Australian Research Council

1
Australian Research Council Discovery, Linkage
Fellowship Applications
Professor Martin Banwell Research School of
Chemistry 20th November, 2007
2
PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, GEOSCIENCES (PCG) PANEL

• ANU member
• disqualified from viewing or participating in
  discussion on any ANU applications
• conflicts of interest declared for other
  applications
• all assessment and discussion at ARC
  confidential
• 40-50 very competitive, fundable projects
• Success rate ca. 20

3
PCG PANEL 2007
Dave Falvey (Executive Director)
Brenton Lewis (ANU) Lollyd Hollenberg
(UofM) Gerard Milburn (UofQ) Rachel Webster
(UofM) Bill Griffin (Macquarie) Michael Reeder
(Monash) John McDonald (CUT) Allan Chivas (UofW)
Martin Banwell (ANU) (Chair) Colin Raston
(UWA) Nick Dixon (UofW) Warren Lawrance
(Flinders) Alan Canty (UofTas)
4
REVIEW PROCESS

• 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

5
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
• 2006 varied from clear, intelligible to
  incomprehensible
• ask a non-scientist to read lay person version

6
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

7
CI, PI, ECR COMBINATIONS

• PI contributions
• lt 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?

8
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 gt 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

9
FELLOWSHIPS

• Answer mobility question carefully
• If staying at ANU need to present strong
  arguments
• CIs 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

10
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 gt600 reports plus assessments to read
  - need focused, well-argued rejoinders

11
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)

12
LINKAGE GRANTS

• Track record not as important (20)
• good opportunity for ECRs or weaker track record
• lt50,000 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