html5-img
1 / 25

Dr Katie Evans Project Manager - Biomedical Investment Processes Group

HRC Annual Funding Round 2015 Information for BMAC members. Dr Katie Evans Project Manager - Biomedical Investment Processes Group. Annual funding round 2015. 321 Project EOI’s submitted across all streams 137 to consider at 5 BMAC meetings (HW & IOACC) 26 BMAC1 32 BMAC2 23 BMAC3

azizi
Télécharger la présentation

Dr Katie Evans Project Manager - Biomedical Investment Processes Group

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. HRC Annual Funding Round 2015 Information for BMAC members Dr Katie Evans Project Manager - Biomedical Investment Processes Group

  2. Annual funding round 2015 • 321 Project EOI’s submitted across all streams • 137 to consider at 5 BMAC meetings (HW & IOACC) • 26 BMAC1 • 32 BMAC2 • 23 BMAC3 • 28 BMAC4 • 28 BMAC5 • 61 to consider at 2 CTAC (HW, IOACC & HD) • 79 to consider at 3 PHAC meetings (HW & IOACC) • 28 to consider at the HDAC meeting (NZHD) • 16 to consider at the MHAC meeting (RHM)

  3. RESEARCH INVESTMENT STREAMS Health and Wellbeing in NZ Understanding health and preventing illness & injury NZ Health Delivery Immediate impact on policy & health delivery Improving Outcomes for Acute & Chronic Conditions in NZ Improving outcomes in illness & injury Rangahau HauoraMāori Building Māori knowledge & capability to address Māori health issues

  4. Purpose: Research that keeps people healthy & independent • Scope:Clear link with improving health & wellbeing • Goals: • Understanding, maintaining & enhancing health • Preventing disease & injury • Understanding & reducing inequalities in risk factors & determinants for disease & injury • Driving innovation through new knowledge • Delivering direct economic benefits for NZ

  5. Purpose: Improving understanding & management of disease • Scope:Clear link to a specific disease, condition/impairment • Goals: • Improve understanding of molecular, cellular or pathological basis • Improving outcomes for individuals/populations • Cost-effective economically sustainable solutions • Reducing inequalities in health-related outcomes • Delivering direct economic benefits

  6. Science assessing committee • Aim • Meeting Procedure • Full Stage Recommendations

  7. Science Assessing Committee meeting • AIM: to discuss, score and rank EOIs, and recommend selection of Full applications (this is NOT a funding decision) • EOIs with lowest average pre-scores triaged • Discussion will take place in a randomized order • EOIs will be ranked by score & presented at the end of the meeting

  8. Time allocation • The total time available for this meeting is limited so we must keep to schedule. • For each application, the following times are suggested: • Declaration & management of COIs ~ 1 min • Lead Committee Reviewer (CR) comments ~ 5 min • General Discussion ~10 min • Scoring ~ 1-2 min • Points noted for written feedback ~ 1-2 min • Total time ~ 15-20 min

  9. Recommendations • Should an EOI be invited back as a Full application? • Scores from each SAC will be normalized & ranked (against all other committees in same RIS), and top EOI applicants will be invited to submit full applications • EOI outcomes released by 6th October • Full Application – should allow 40-50% chance of funding

  10. Finer details • CR responsibilities • Conflict of Interest management • Responsiveness to Māori

  11. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CR • Providing an overview & assessment of assigned applications • Commenting on 4 different score criteria • Commenting on any issues relevant (positive/negative)

  12. Conflicts of interest Declare potentialCOIs with applicants (PI & NI’s), if: • From same department, institution or company • Directly involved in research/collaborated/published/co-applicant, within last 5 yrs • A student/supervisor within the last 10 yrs • A close personal friend/relative • Any significant scientific/personal differences • Potential for financial gain/loss from the outcome • You cannot provide an objective review

  13. Conflicts of interest Management COIs discussed, with one of the following outcomes: • No action necessary, conflict noted • Member may be asked questions relating to their unique knowledge, but will not score • Member must not be present during discussion or scoring of proposals

  14. RESPONSIVENESS TO MĀORI • SAC required to review whether consultation & involvement of Māori as researchers and/or participants is appropriate • Responsiveness to Māori could impact one or more scoring criteria

  15. Assessment & scoring • Score criteria & descriptors • Assessing Impact • Weighting of scores • Review & re-ranking

  16. ASSESSMENT & SCORING Score Descriptor 7 Exceptional 6 Excellent 5 Very good 4 Good 3 Adequate 2 Unsatisfactory 1 Poor • Rationale for Research • Study design & methods • Research Impact • Expertise & Track Record of the Research Team • Global Score (not in total & used only as tie breaker)

  17. Your discussion • Consider each of the 4 criteria • Do not focus only on Design & Methods • Consider Research impact (more next slide) • Should the applicants be invited to submit a full application?

  18. Scoring impact • The applicant must state how their research contributes to investment signal goal(s) • If not addressed in any detail this must be reflected in score • If definitely in the wrong research investment stream, a score of 1 should be given

  19. Weighting of Scores

  20. Electronic Scoring • Turn on device • When “voting is open” you see : • application ID no 15/XXX • which “Question” 1-4: Rationale, D&M, TR, Impact • Q5 & Q6 blank (enter any number) • Q7 Global score • “Answer” each question & “Enter” your score (1-7) NOTE: - Whole numbers only - Cannot re-score; record on score sheet

  21. Review scores & re-ranking • Ranked total scores presented for discussion • Re-ranking: • Any member may propose an application for re-ranking • COI noted & managed • Scores modified, after discussion & agreement, by adding ±0.5 points max. to 1 or 2 score criteria • New ranking & adjusted Totals considered • This can be repeated for a number of applications • Members identify cut point off – those below NOT invited to submit full application

  22. Conclusion • At the end of the meeting • Feedback to applicants

  23. At the end of the meeting . . . • Hand in all documentation & proposals • Complete your expense claim forms • Complete feedback to applicants in next 3 days • Keep everything confidential • Committee Dinner

  24. Feedback to applicants • Applicants will receive review summary feedback from the CR • In next 3 days – collated & Chair approval before results released • Applicants will also receive quantitative feedback: 1) Percentile ranking of SAC score (if discussed); or 2) Percentile ranking of SAC pre-scores (if triaged)

  25. Thank you • All processes are fully described in the provided HRC Peer Review Manual • Don’t forget: • to note your Review Summaries • Hand in your expense claim

More Related