ARC projects and Fellowships

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. Key words are VIP

5. April in Canberra Ozreader 1 Ozreader 2 EAC 2 panel ED applicant research branch ARC EAC 1 Intreader 1 Intreader 2

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. Late July EAC 2 panel ED applicant research branch ARC EAC 1 Comments only scores and ranking rejoinder

10. 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).

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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…

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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)

22. 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.

23. 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).

24. 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.