1 / 10

Grant Application Cycle Procedures for Health Services Research in Australia & New Zealand

This document outlines the grant application cycle, including peer review processes for health services research in Australia and New Zealand. Applicants are guided on assessment criteria, scoring categories, and the approval process following the submission of grant proposals. The priorities include scientific quality, significance, innovation, and track record. Detailed instructions for responding to peer reviews, crafting successful proposals, and ensuring eligibility are provided. Guidance on clarity and relevance is emphasized to enhance funding chances.

pascale-frank
Télécharger la présentation

Grant Application Cycle Procedures for Health Services Research in Australia & New Zealand

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. Clive MorrisResearch Group Health Services Research Association Australia & New Zealand

  2. Grant Application Cycle Schemes close Applications assigned Peer Review Initial assessment (primary spokesperson & external assessors) Applicant response Peer Review by Grant Review Panel Approval Processes Announcement by Minister Applicants notified of Funding Scheme outcomes

  3. Background: Assessment Criteria & Scoring Categories • Scientific Quality (50%) • Significance and/or Innovation (25%) • Track Record – relative to opportunity (25%) • 7 – Outstanding by International Standards • 6 – Excellent • 5 – Very Good • 4 – Good • 3 – Marginal • 2 – Unsatisfactory • 1 – Poor

  4. Clarity of Purpose and Readability • Setting the scene: general pointers • Read the funding rules (check for eligibility issues) • Read the selection criteria carefully and address those in your application • CV & Profile up to date (in RGMS) • Know your audience

  5. Significance and/or Innovation • Novelty • What is novel about your research? • Significance • How significant is the proposed study? • How will it make a difference and can you demonstrate this?

  6. Research Goals & Feasibility • Ambitious goals • Feasibility considerations

  7. Track Record and Progress Reports • Track Record considerations: • Include well constructed progress reports on previous grants • Track record is considered “relative to opportunity” • International benchmarking

  8. Applicant Response • Use the opportunity to respond, even if the review is positive • Keep your response professional

  9. Summary • Use every opportunity throughout the review process to demonstrate why your proposal should be funded • The application • Assessor reports • Applicant response GOOD LUCK !

  10. Questions? 16 Marcus Clarke St Canberra City ACT 2600 GPO Box 1421 CANBERRA ACT 2601

More Related