How to improve ARC-Discovery
success:
What college members look for
Jim Mitchell
Member of ARC College 2012-2014
Seventeen grants from the ARC over the last 20 years
Modified from Mike Bull’s presentation
Process
What is the College?
ARC COLLEGE
173 MEMBERS (was 77)
5 PANELS
Biological Sciences and Biotechnology (BSB)
Engineering, Mathematics and Informatics (EMI)
Humanities and Creative Arts (HCA)
Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences (PCE)
Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences (SBE)
Assessment
Your application gets read by
• 2 – 6 expert reviewers
• 2 College members
At least one of the members is unlikely to be an expert in
your field
You do not see College scores or comments
They contribute 50% or more towards your final ARC score
Ranking
• The expert and college letter scores (A, B, C, D,
E), which you do not see, are combined to
produce a rank
• The rank is within the panel, thus a proposal
competes against all other proposals within
the panel
• The ranking is forced to 55% D or E
• Expert review words may not reflect letter
scores
The budget
• The budget is only looked at after the ranking
is set.
• Budget size does not influence the ranking
• It is a one line budget with a decreasing
number of restrictions
How much do we fund?
How much do we fund?
How much do we fund?
How much do we fund?
Why 0 at level 1?
It is hard to prove world leadership from a junior position.
ARC looks for international competitiveness and leadership, which means
international esteem measures (BAFTAs, AA, Lasker, Nobel, Fields…). If one were
that good one would be promoted even if young.
Remember to benchmark is against the best in the world, not in Australia
Do we fund equitably?
Bias caused primarily by EMI, which receives the most proposals, but few with females
Do we fund equitably?
28
28
34
40
33
28
33
14
Do they fund equitably?
Do they fund equitably?
The proposal
Remember to benchmark is against the best in the world.
What does the ARC fund?
World leading research
Consistently productive researchers
Research that will provide ‘bang for the buck’
Long term research programs
Check box synopsis
 Have world leading novelty and innovation
 Have an outstanding team
 Have a project topic and design that will provide far reaching
outcomes
 Innovate, innovate, innovate
 New methods, new team combination, unusual outcomes,
Some advice from Mike
Make yourself known:
•
•
•
Conference presentations
Seminars
Visit research groups
Someone out there will be an assessor for a future grant.
If your research is good
make people aware of it
The Selection Criteria
Investigator (40%)
we look at ROPE closely
maternity leave, cancer, etc. are taken
taken into account
Project Quality and Innovation (25%)
Feasibility and Benefit (20%)
Research Environment (15%)
- research environment
- available facilities
- dissemination plan
seriously and
(where will you publish? Don’t say Nature if you have never published there.)
WHAT ASSESSORS LOOK FOR
Need to impress in the first page
USE AIMS & BACKGROUND TO LAY THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Need:
a broadly defined and exciting research project.
a sharp innovative focus
clearly defined and achievable aims
HOW TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS & College Members
SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Quick review of recent developments in the field
What are major unanswered conceptual questions
Indication of your experience and how you will apply that in new ways
What system do you have that is of value
Why can you take this beyond where others have been
Have focussed, achievable aims
Explain the team members’ roles
EXCITEMENT & INNOVATION
1) You need to Excite non-expert CoE members
2) You need to Impress your expert peers
3) Why will this research solve a major unanswered question or open a new field
HOW NOT TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS
SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Repeat of work elsewhere, in an Australian context = not impressive
Tidying up experiments from a previous grant = not impressive
Vague “broad-brush” aims = not impressive
Aims that are methods or techniques = not impressive
Maintaining long-term data base = not impressive
Getting yourself or team into a new field = not impressive
BUT it is legitimate to build on previous grants with new questions,
“Next stage” projects
HOW TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Clearly indicate logical structure of project
How do methods relate to project aims
How will hypotheses be tested
Divide with subheadings: relate to your specific hypotheses
Cover contingencies: try to predict and address reviewers comments
HOW TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Avoid:
“Cutting Edge Research” = “only 20 other Australian
Universities doing it”
“State of the Art Facilities” = “installed sometime in the last
15 years”
“We are unaware of any study where this procedure has
been attempted before” = “We haven’t really checked but
probably no-one else has done it on a south facing
laboratory bench”
BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR CLAIMS OF RESEARCH
LEADERSHIP
HOW TO IMPRESS REVIEWERS
NATIONAL BENEFIT
Warning: National Research priorities .... “climate change!!!”
a climatologist College member will rank and
comment
Training researchers
Developing research links
Maintaining Australia’s high profile & leadership
COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS
Does anyone consider this in assessment?? YES, but beware
make supportable and reasonable claims
peer reviewed literature
national and international conferences
community groups
radio and TV
ROLE OF PERSONNEL
Ensure that all required skills for project are covered
Explain every team member’s role
Demonstrate everyone is essential
Convince us that the collaborations are real
Budget
•
•
•
•
•
College members set the budgets
Do not pad
Do not over promise
Value for money plays into the funding
Commonly College members feel that people
should be able to attract students with APAs
• Break sequencing costs into sub sections
MAJOR STRATEGY SUGGESTION
Collaborations need to be developed and nurtured for 12
months or more.
Previously successful collaborations need even more
nurturing.
MAJOR STRATEGY SUGGESTION (IF PARTNERS
IN PLACE)
Start preparing application early (>6 months before)
Get feedback (peers .... co-investigators)
Some general hints about the minutia of applications
READ THE RULES YOURSELF .... IN DETAIL
IF YOU ARE UNSURE ABOUT ANYTHING ASK RESEARCH SERVICES
MAKE SURE YOU FOLLOW ALL OF THE APPLICATION RULES EXACTLY
THE ARC IS UNFORGIVING
DO NOT RELY ON OTHER PEOPLE
PICKING UP ERRORS IN YOUR APPLICATION
WHAT TO DO WHEN THE REVIEWS COME BACK
Do not develop positive or negative expectations
Do not respond with anger
Do not respond to positive comments
Briefly address major criticisms; if you think reviewer has misinterpreted
your application clearly explain why. CoE is looking for reasons to discount
a particular reviewer.
Be as brief as possible
Stay well under the word limit
LONGER-TERM ARC STRATEGIES
Continue to submit after success
Remember success is a stochastic process
DO NOT wait until your funding is about to run out
Questions?