ARC

1. ARC Prof Glen Deacon School of Chemistry Member, ARC College of Experts

2. ARC College of Experts • MONASH member • disqualified from viewing or participating in discussion on any MONASH applications Panel member applications hidden • conflicts of interest declared for other applications • all assessment and discussion at ARC confidential • Advice provided by Monash Research Office is excellent

3. PCG PANEL 2004 Erich Weigold (Executive Director) Keith Nugent (Melbourne) Chair Michelle Simmons (UNSW) Igor Bray (Murdoch) Robert Vincent (Adelaide) Chris Tinney (AAO) Mark Harrison (RSES, ANU) Several at end of contract Peter Cawood (Curtin) Lesley Wyborn (AGSO) Glen Deacon (Monash) Ezzio Rizzardo (CSIRO) Margaret Harding (Sydney) Bob Watts (ex-BHP)

4. REVIEW PROCESS • 2 Panel members, 2 OZ readers, try for 4 international assessors • target likely panel members’ expertise • use language for non-expert • Overall ranking is important (not scores) • * cannot emphasize too strongly as fairer than scores • Get feedback • from colleagues outside your core research area ie non-experts • colleagues who have acted as assessors • ECRs - aim to have complete proposal ready for review by end Jan at the very latest

5. REVIEW PROCESS: Keywords, RFCD codes • Broad general keywords • test effectiveness of keywords by searching literature online • target general expertise of assessor with keywords • choose keywords/FORC codes to access relevant assessors and to avoid others • 100 words summary • 2004 varied from clear, intelligible to incomprehensible • ask a non-scientist to read lay person version

6. 2004 New : FEEDBACK Graphical feedback on relative ranking in 4 categories • If unsuccessful, address category(ies) that ranked poorly • Track Record 40% • Significance & Innovation 30% • ensure that this is 1-2 pages minimum • Approach 20% • National benefit 10% • link to National priority areas • avoid exaggerated, grandiose claims that research will add to economy etc

7. CI, PI, ECR COMBINATIONS • PI contributions • is there evidence of significant contribution of PI? • is CI simply using PI track record to bump up application with no real contribution from PI • state explicitly intellectual contribution from CI/PI in both budget and proposal • ECR • sole ECR generally better • must have reasonable track record of some publications • ECR/established CI combinations • be clear what each investigator brings to project • CI/CI combinations • real collaborations required • between institutions

8. 3 YEAR VERSUS 5 YEAR GRANTS • Limited funds for 5 years :established research teams • Far too many in 2004 • Justify why 5 years required vs 3 years • address stated criteria • include timeline • if insufficient funds available for 5 years, panel will need to judge whether project is achievable in 3 years: be careful in budget/timeline • Grants > $200,000 fully justify • panel will need to judge whether research can still be performed if reduced funds available • fully justify large numbers of personnel • remember that Australian colleagues will be assessors and are aware of costs

9. FELLOWSHIPS • Answer mobility question carefully • If staying at Monash need to present strong arguments • CI’s applying with APD/ARF as applicant also need to address this carefully especially if Fellow is already working in group • APDs • Lack of mobility, perceived continuation of same work as PhD, result in low ranks • Highlight any diverse experience and unique contributions • Must have publications from PhD plus postdoc years • ARF/QEII • Extremely competitive • Track record: need to demonstrate explicitly some independent contributions post PhD • Research Environment : Highlight benefits but also what ARF/QEII will bring to environment to enhance research

10. ASSESSORS (ie you) • Unhelpful assessments • very positive comments and low rankings • database reviewed to remove “unhelpful”, tardy assessors • If you are asked to be an assessor • incorporate comments that will provide the applicant with overall feedback on relative ranking • provide enough information to give applicant a chance to respond in rejoinder • if you have a grant, you are expected to be an Oz/Int reader if requested • OZ readers/panel members • aware of budget issues and research funding in Australia • ambit/inflated claims and padded budgets readily identified (conference travel, teaching relief, support costs)

11. REJOINDERS • Follow RO Advice • be succinct • highlight and respond directly to any criticisms • What not to do • be hostile and aggressive • use statements like “the referee did not understand/read the proposal” - refute an erroneous assessment with scientific fact • try and hide any negatives by repeating positive statements from other reports • Remember.... • for your application to be pushed up in the ranking, someone else must come down • panel has >600 reports plus assessments to read - need focused, well-argued rejoinders

12. LINKAGE GRANTS • Track record not as important (20%) • good opportunity for ECRs or weaker track record • becoming more competitive • <$50,000 not reviewed externally • * minimum industry support does not impress • APAIs • emphasise research training aspect (environment, track record in supervision, completions etc) • ensure that project is training and not contract work for an RA • Significance & Innovation 25% Track Record 20% • Approach and training 20% Industry commit 25% • National Benefit 10%