NHMRC Fellowship Interviews

1. What to Expect: Tips and Tricks NHMRC Fellowship Interviews Research FellowshipsPractitioner FellowshipsPhil Robinson, CMRI, Westmead NSW

2. Aims of the ResearchFellowships Scheme Be familiar with the specifc award aims • Develop and support highly productive Australian biomedical and health research scientists • Provide researchers with a career structure • Foster an intellectual environment supporting training • Encourage translation of research outcomes into health practice • Facilitate interaction with industry

3. Aims of the PractitionerFellowships Scheme Be familiar with the specifc award aims • Strengthen clinical and public health by: • Providing opportunity to combine research with professional career • Facilitate translation of research outcomes into practice • Contribute to evidence-based practice and policy development

4. Peer-Review Process • Applications are assigned to one of three Peer Review Advisory Panels - PRAPs (65-70 per panel) • Only competitive applicants proceed to interview (cull) • Panels seek external assessors • Interviews (~50 interviews per panel over 3 days) • Ranking: • Outstanding (top 5%) • Excellent (top 10%) • Very Good (but not top 10% internationally) • Good (some reservations) • Fair (major reservations) • Funding available to Outstanding and ~45% of Excellent

5. Position Classification Statements • Lists which set out broad outlines of baseline activities, attributes and achievements • Definitions are provided for each of the 4 levels of the scheme • Considered relative to opportunity • Includes activities and attributes required of a Fellow • Stronger applications will show breadth over wider range of the descriptors - but not all of them • You don't just MEET these guidelines, you need to be HIGHLY COMPETITIVE within them • note that all interviewees already "meet" the guidelines Review the Research or Practitioner Fellowships Funding Policy: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/fellows/apply/granttype/career/index.htm

6. Research Performance Descriptors • This is a set of guidelines on how to describe your performance • Guidelines are indicative, not exhaustive • A guide to what might be considered of higher merit in: • Publications • Grants • Peer Recognition (invitations to speak) • Prizes and Awards • Research translation (Commercialisation / Health Practice) • Research training • Professional activities Review the Research or Practitioner Fellowships Funding Policy: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/fellows/apply/granttype/career/index.htm

7. The Interview Process Who Gets To Interview? • Initial Applicants: High cull rate up to 45%. Only those remaining are interviewed. • Renewal: All applicants. • Promotion (out-of-synchrony with renewal): All applicants. • SPRF (Initial appointment or Promotion): Considered akin to "Personal Chairs" and are treated as a professorial appointment. Separate interview late in the week (Thurs) by the RFC itself, not interviewed by the PRAPs. • SPRF Renewal: Interviewed by the PRAPs, as all other candidates. Review the Research or Practitioner Fellowships Funding Policy: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/fellows/apply/granttype/career/index.htm

8. The Interview Process This is an extract from the Research Fellowships Funding Policy 2007. The relevant section of the Practitioner Fellowship Funding Policy is essentially the same: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/fellows/apply/granttype/career/index.htm 13. All applications for Initial Appointment that do not meet the eligibility criteria will be excluded from the peer review process prior to allocation of assessors and therefore will not be interviewed. All other applicants will be externally assessed and proceed to interview. 14. All panel members participate in each interview, unless Conflict of Interest guidelines require otherwise. Such exclusion will be recorded by the Panel Secretary 15. A half-hour timeslot will be scheduled for each applicant, of which about 20 minutes are used for the interview. 16. Before the applicant arrives, the Primary Spokesperson will make a brief summary to the panel of the applicant's case, including points identified by assessors. Additional points can be raised by the Secondary Spokesperson. Other panel members who have key concerns or points for clarification with the candidate or Spokespersons will raise them at this stage. 17. After the applicant arrives, the Panel Chair will introduce the panel to the applicant, confirm the type and level of Fellowship requested and explain the format of the interview. Following this the applicant may tender material for the panel to view (i.e. update on CV). The applicant must provide the panel with 8 copies of this material. The Primary Spokesperson will begin questions, flagging concerns if applicable. Issues raised by assessors should also be raised by the spokesperson. He/she will prioritise questions and keep the candidate’s replies focussed to ensure that the candidate has optimum time to put their case and that the Secondary Spokesperson has time to participate. 18. After about 10 minutes the Secondary Spokesperson can ask additional questions or follow up issues already discussed. Some time should be left for other members to ask questions. 19. Applicants will be asked to address performance in terms of: Excellence of scientific contributions; Competitive edge in the international arena and how this will be maintained and enhanced; Expected outcomes at the completion of a five year fellowship. 20 (RF only). Applicants for SPRF will also be asked to provide justification on how the NHMRC would benefit by their appointment to the NHMRC Research Fellowship scheme. 21 (PF Only). Requests for Promotion during an existing five year appointment will not be ranked as these applicants are not competing for a new five year Fellowship appointment. Rather, they are seeking review of the level of their existing appointment. 21. Nearing the end of the 20 minutes, the Chair will ask the applicant if there is any particular information that he/she feels has not been covered by the interview and that they would like to bring forward, and/or to briefly summarise their case for Initial Appointment, Renewal, Renewal with Promotion, or Promotion during an existing appointment (early promotion). 22. After the applicant leaves the interview the Primary Spokesperson will summarise the case and make a recommendation to the panel. The Secondary Spokesperson then comments and this is followed by a general panel discussion. The Chair will then seek advice from each of the members as to whether they support the Primary Spokesperson’s recommendation. Further discussion may follow until a consensus is reached. Where a request for Initial Appointment, Renewal or Renewal with Promotion is made the panel will rank the application. 23. Using an international basis of comparison, all applicants will be judged on merit relative to the objectives of the scheme. Following interview each panel will rank all applicants based on the following categories: 1 = Outstanding - top 5% internationally 2 = Excellent - top 10% internationally 3 = Very good - but not top 10% internationally 4 = Good - worth consideration, but some reservations 5 = Fair - not appointable on an international scale, some major reservations. Applicants will be further ranked by decile within these rankings. 24. The final ranked list from each panel will proceed to RFC for further consideration. The RFC will compile a consolidated ranked list taking into consideration: Relative merit as judged by the panels; The aims of the Research Fellowships scheme to support outstanding researchers as well as to provide a career structure; The requirement for the bulk of initial appointments to be made at SRFA and SRFB levels. The requirement that initial appointment of PRF and SPRF level is made only if applicants are “outstanding” and demonstrate “exceptional circumstances”.

9. The Interview Process The Panels • Three PRAPs + one RFC panel. • PRAPS (Peer Review Advisory Panels) • RFC (Research Fellowships Committee). • Consists of Professorial Level or SPRF appointees. • Make all final rankings decisions • A member of the RFC chairs each of the three PRAPS as well • RFC interviews SPRF applicants (but not SPRF renewals) Review the Research or Practitioner Fellowships Funding Policy: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/fellows/apply/granttype/career/index.htm

10. The Interview Process RFC (Research Fellowships Committee) * Starts July 1

11. The Interview Process The Three PRAPs The three PRAPS cover a broad number of research fields. Some basic science applicants whose research involves "humans" may be assigned to Panel C, whether clinical or not.

12. The Interview Process Panel Members A

13. The Interview Process Panel Members B

14. The Interview Process Panel Members C

15. The Interview Process Oh no! My Panel Does Not Have Expertise! Concern about being assigned to the "wrong" panel: • Generates anxiety for applicant. • Panels closer to applicant discipline may better understand scientific impact in that discipline. • Personally, I find that any applicant could be equally handled by any panel. • The interview is not the only ranking criteria. • To determine whether a scientist's research is a significant body of work and has impact is not difficult, but relative ranking is difficult at the funding borderline. • Panels are aware when this occurs and allowance is made. However the system is not perfect in this area. • There is nothing you can do about it - so relax! (or make formal complaint to Ombudsman if published process was not followed). • Research the scientific background of your panel members - your spokesperson could be any of the three most related to your discipline.

16. The Interview Room Arrangement • Previously, the applicant faced the panel across a single table - intimidating • This year, applicant should be sitting with the panel (square or round tables) - less intimidating? • Usually water is available on the table. • Who will be present in the room?: • Panel Chair • Spokesperson 1 • Spokesperson 2 • 3 other panel members (up to 6) • NHMRC secretariat support person (takes notes) • Chair of RFC may be present or not (random sampling) • Panel members with conflict of interest leave the room before the process starts. Occasionally two panel members leave (ie you might have a small panel!)

17. The Interview Process Overview • The interview is crucial. No less important than a job interview. • Interview can radically change your ranking within a category (and less so, between categories). • Get your case summarised early in the interview. • Panels may focus interview on percieved weaker points. Don't despair, they have not necessarily overlooked your strengths. The focus is to help you bring out anything they may have overlooked. • At end of interview, you can point out what has not been raised (although, in practice this is not often of value to the panel). • Note that the interview does not cover your SEO application - RFC decides.

18. The Interview What to Bring With You - for the Panel • Yourself - on time! Some wear suit/tie, others jeans - no rules. (personally, I prefer formal dress!) • As the day proceeds, the panel can be late (worst case is 1 hr) • Bring a concise CV update. Include ONLY updates NOT already in your application. Updates are optional. • Aim for maximum of 2 pages (Double-sided is better!) • Dot points preferred • Panel does NOT have time to read it all (often discard it) • Require 8 copies in total • Hand them out at the start of the interview (Chair should ask for it at the beginning) • Do NOT hand out photos, reprints, books, multi-page documents - they will be ignored (there is no time).

19. The Interview What to Bring With You - Backup Only • Be pepared with backup documentation. In rare cases, substantiation of claims may be requested. Unsupported claims occasionally cause problems. • Its highly unlikely you will require any of the following, but it helps to be prepared. Bring 1-2 copies only: • Letters of acceptance of in-press papers (or the proofs) • Reviewers comments on papers under revision • Notification letters of new grants or prizes • GRP comments on grants currently being considered • Books, pamphlets, conference flyers etc • Do NOT offer to distribute any of these items to the panel UNLESS specifically requested. It wastes YOUR short interview time • Prepare for any obvious questions about your potential lapse in productivity or funding, changes in career path/instutition, your role/leadership within a team.

20. The Interview Process Time Allocation - Overview • 30 minutes are allocated to each application – but only 20 minutes for the interview stage • Chairs maintain time allocation for each applicant to ensure each is given equal opportunity to state their case • The Panel members ensure that: • they extract relevant information from applicants • they should not be verbally tough or argumentative with the applicant – They mostly try to be friendly and relaxed (rare examples occur!) • they allow applicant to provide a case for why they should be awarded a fellowship

21. The Interview Process Time Allocation - The First 10 Minutes • Panel members have an interview checklist provided by the NHMRC to ensure all points are covered. • Before you come in the room, the Panel (Primary Spokesperson) spends 5 mins reviewing application and identifying areas in need of clarification at interview. • The first 10 minutes are allocated as follows: • Introduction by Chair and confirmation of application details (a formality only) • Invitation to introduce yourself and present your case in a 2 min overview (this is not always done!) • Primary Spokesperson begins questions, flagging specific concerns if applicable • Issues identified by Assessors are to be raised (if they might impact on a decision)

22. The Interview Process Time Allocation - The Second 10 Minutes • After about 10 minutes the Secondary Spokesperson asks additional questions or follow up issues that may already have been discussed • Additional issues are then raised by other Panel members • Nearing the end of the 20 minutes, the Chair will ask the applicant to address issues which they consider have not been covered and for them to give a final summation of their case. • Raise concerns you have - panel misunderstood you, panel emphasis appears to be in wrong area, no one raised your strongest points. (These are record by the secretariat). • Most applicants have no comment to make at this point - this is fine. Many applicants feel they have been given a fair hearing by this time.

23. The Interview Process What Are The Questions Seeking? • When invited to speak freely (eg opening statement), you should: • Attempt to present your best case • Avoid going back to repeat anything already covered verbally • Avoid generic/stereotype answers - do not over-rehearse answers • When asked a question by a Panel member: • Listen carefully to ensure you understand it • Ask, if not clear what they want • Get to the point quickly. eg, answer first, then explain briefly • Avoid going too far beyond the question • Use the question, after answering clearly, to bring out further strengths you might have in that area they may have overlooked, but be brief. This can sometimes turn the converstaion your way. • Address your answer to ALL panel members - never speak to only one.

24. The Interview Promotion-out-of-synchrony With Renewal • If awarded, you start a new 5-year fellowship • Your case is based heavily on what changed since your last Fellowship interview (usually 2-3 years ago) • The assumption is that you have achieved a meteoric rise or achievements in the last 2-3 years, since your last appointment. • Focus your case on recent achievements • The applicant is ranked along with all others - funded only if above the cut-off for that year.

25. How to Rank A Research Fellow Fellows are:Leading Scientists and Scientific Leaders Panels must balance distinct criteria: • Excellence of the Body of Scientific Contribution • Contribution to science or medicine is significant and sustained • What is, and how you will maintain or expand your competitive edge? • Evidence of Recognition by Peers • National / International (perhaps higher emphasis); prizes, plenaries, reviews, commentaries. • Strong Plan/Vision for Research Growth • Not simply "more of the same"! Know where you are going. • Service to the Discipline / Training / Mentoring

26. The Interview The Tough Questions • Some questions from the Panel may throw you off balance: • Is your publication rate declining? • Is the quality of journal in which you publish adequate? • Are you the real "driver" or too dependent on collaborator/mentor X? • Have you over-extended yourself/not focussed enough? • Whats your plan to build your team? • Whats your strategy to increase your grant income? • How are you contributing to Science Policy? • Do not despair. Even the "biggest" names get these questions! • The Panel wants to see how you respond to percieved or real weaknesses. • You cannot excel in all areas. Answer the question first, and highlight strengths in other areas, or acknowledge you need to do more in that area. • Think these issues through before interview!

27. The Interview Honesty and Sincerity • Be honest and truthful - your body language gives you away. Not what the panel wants to hear, but what you know is true. • Avoid self-inflation - you did not get an interview if you were not already seen as very good. • Don't expose yourself - no one can meet all the criteria. • Your role in a team: • If at SRF: Don't talk down your mentor • If at PRF/SPRF: acknowledge contribution of team/postdocs • Give credit where due - this reflects on you • Don't under-sell yourself either. Many scientists have difficulty talking about themselves.

28. After the Interview What Happens After You Leave? • Primary spokesperson leads discussion on the interview. • Strengths and weaknesses are considered. • The Panels agree on the reasons for ranking and confirm information for the interview report. • Preliminary ranking is assigned (scoring from 1-5 categories: Outstanding, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair). Then subdivide further 10-15 rungs. • Applicants rarely are moved from the initial category to which they were assigned. • Rankings for the day are reviewed at the end of each day for relativitiy. "The whiteboard!". Some applicants moved up/down, to slot others in the ranking for that category. Others are flagged for further discussion. • Re-ranking for the week is done at end of day 3 for the whole panel allocation (usually 50 per panel). Focus is on middle band, wherein most difficulties are encountered between strong candidates in different disciplines. No two applicants get the same rank. \.............

29. After the Interview What Happens After You Leave? /...... • Most time is spent ranking within the Excellent category. • Ranking: • Outstanding (top 5%) • Excellent (top 10%) • Very Good (but not top 10% internationally) • Good (some reservations) • Fair (major reservations) • RFC will combine the rankings of the 3 Panels (taking into account the aims of the scheme and the funds available). At this point some applicants may recieve the same ranking. • One ranked list with recommendations for renewal/ appointment will be provided to Research Committee. • Recommendations go to Research Committee. • Funding likely available to Outstanding and ~45% of Excellent. • 1st spokesperson writes Panel Report, checked by 2nd, then by chair of RFC.

30. Extra Notes

31. How Many Get Appointed? Initial Applicants success rate (25%) Renewals success rate (76%) Total Total Received Received Funded Funded • Similar success rate to Project grants • There are no set quotas for IA. • Success depends on ranking in open competition with renewals

32. Numbers of Research Fellows in Scheme (1998-2007) Total Block Funding SRF PRF SPRF

33. How Many Practitioner Fellows Are There? All • Scheme started in Jan 2001 • Scheme just completed its first 5 year cycle for 2005. PF1 PF2

34. Tips • Distinction between top of CDA and entry to Fellowships Scheme is blurry. Some have been awarded both! New CDA2 (6-12 yr postdoc) may make this more clear this year. • Publications must include consistent articles in the top journals in your field/discipline. Not everyone has published in Nature/Science/Lancet (because these are not relevant to all disciplines). • Scientific achievements must be significant, and sustained. You need to show that/how your work makes a difference. • Case is strengthened by evidence others listen to you - hence conference invites, literature reviews, commentaries, awards. • An active and vibrant plan for the next 5-years is essential. "More of the same" is insufficient. Show how you have increased potential for next 5-years. Particular attention to new directions and efforts at building team. • Giving something back to the discipline is important - peer review, conference organisation etc. But not necessarily in all areas. (Depends on seniority). • Training and mentoring are important. Considered highly. Small teams can do well too, but if small they need greater strength in other areas.