Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN2 1ET Tel [phone] http:www.epsrc.ac.uk

1
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon,
Wiltshire, SN2 1ET Tel (01793)
444000http//www.epsrc.ac.uk/ e-mail
infoline_at_epsrc.ac.uk Helpline [phone]
2
Robin Hayden

• University Interface Manager
• Durham, Newcastle, Northumbria, Sunderland,
  Teesside
• Schemes
• EPSRC Je-S System Representative
• Peer Review
• Panel Convenor (Engineering)

• Overview of Process
• Running Panels

• Decision Actions
• Service Standards

3
Opportunities for EPSRC funding

• Wide remit
• Number of different mechanisms to engage the
  research community
• Schemes fit different needs

Budget allocation of 568M in 2005/6 and rising
to 721M for 2007/8
4
Opportunities for EPSRC funding

• Research
• Responsive Mode and Calls for Proposals
• First Grant Scheme, Platform Grants
• Collaboration
• Collaborative Training Accounts (CTAs)
• Collaborative Research Grants
• People
• Postgraduate Training
• Fellowships
• Networks
• Public Understanding

5
EPSRC Expenditure 2004/5
510 Million
Grants347M
Source EPSRC Annual Report 2004-2005
6
Research Proposals

• What are they?
• What can I apply for?

7
Research Proposals

• Responsive Mode (no closing dates)
• Research direction decided by applicant
• Main criterion is quality
• Includes First Grants, Overseas Travel Grants,
  Visiting Researchers

• Calls for Proposals (deadline for applications)
• For research in a particular subject area
• Proposal must meet certain criteria to be
  considered against the call
• Assessment criteria will be given

8
Proposals include

• Proposal form (available via Je-S)

• Case for support (up to 8 pages in total)
• Previous research track record (2 sides A4)
• Description of proposed research context
  (6 sides A4)
• Diagrammatic Workplan (1 side of A4)
• Justification of Resources (1 side of A4)

• Annexes can include
• Letters of support
• Equipment quotes
• 2 page CVs for Visiting Researchers named
  staff posts

9
Why FEC?

• Concern that research at universities was under
  resourced.
• Poor understanding of the costs of research only
  directly attributable costs were being fully
  recouped overheads and long-run costs were
  not.
• Universities are now required to have procedures
  that establish the Full Economic Cost (FEC) of
  research.
• To maintain the volume of research the government
  is making extra funds available to the Research
  and Funding Councils to cover the extra costs now
  identified (additional 200M per annum for the
  Research Councils).
• FEC currently covers Research Grants and
  Fellowships but not training (e.g. project
  students, training grants)

10
Research Council funding
FEC
Pre-FEC
Eligible staff costs (e.g. Direct staff (RAs),
support staff)
Research Councils plays 80 of full costs (plus
100 of exceptions)
Other eligible costs (e.g. equipment)
Research council contribution to indirect costs
46 of staff costs
Ineligible costs (e.g. salary of the Principal
Investigator)
University pays the remainder
Remaining indirect costs
Grants covered about 55 of full economic costs
FEC Exceptions Equipment over 50k Project
Students
Paid by Research Councils
Paid by University
11
Full Economic Costs - FEC

• No costs are inadmissible
• But.

• Resources must be justified.

12
Fund Headings for Research Grants
Staff Travel subsistence Equipment (under
50k) Other costs
Directly Incurred
STAFF Research, Technician Fellows, Visiting
Researchers, Other
Investigators Other Directly Allocated
costs Estates Costs
Directly Allocated
PI and Co-I(s)
Shared Staff costs Research Facilities /
existing equipment Other
Indirect costs
Indirect Costs
Staff (Project Students) Equipment (over
50k) Other costs
Exceptions
13
Justification of resources

• Pre-FEC
• Justification not required
• Indirect costs
• Need/time only
• Services
• Investigators
• Fully justified
• Everything else

• FEC
• Justification not required
• Indirect Estates costs
• Need/time only
• Shared Staff Costs
• DA Investigators (not salary)
• Research Facilities / existing equipment
• Other Directly Allocated costs
• Fully Justified
• Everything else

14
The Who, What and Why of Peer Review
15
The Peer Review Process Involves
HEI and proposer Skills and
ideas, research and resources Responsibility
for managing the process Refer
ees Expert opinions
Prioritisation Panel Ranked list for
funding priority
16
The EPSRC College

• Members nominated by those active in EPSRC
  research
• Selection process involves more than 20,000
  researchers
• Current College active from January 2006 for 4
  years
• 4000 College members
• Academics and non-academics
• From July 2003 to June 2004
• 16 College members invited to sit on Panels
• 83 College members invited to referee

New College for 2006 2009 now in place.
17
Ethics and Standards
The Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan)

• Integrity
• Selflessness
• Honesty
• Openness
• Objectivity
• Accountability
• Leadership

18
Peer Review procedures
Peer Group
Proposer
College
Referees One from proposer Two from college
Associate Programme Manager
Supportive?
NO
YES
Review Panel
Not Supported
Chair
Financial Allocations
Programme Manager
Rank Order
Council
Unfunded
Funded
19
The Referees
Je-S
20
Selection of Referees

• Referees selected include a minimum of
• One of three referees nominated by
  applicant (think about who you nominate)
• Two College referees
• May also include
• Other independent referees
• International referees
• Continuity for resubmissions

21
Role of the Referee

• Referees are crucial to the assessment process.
• If you are asked to referee a proposal, please
  provide
• your comments .
• . Which should be
• detailed
• consistent with box markings on the proforma
• constructive

Do unto others..
22
Role of the Referee
Referees are reminded that

• Blue skies research is perfectly
  acceptable
• Interdisciplinary research needs a broad view
• Involvement of industrial collaborators
  financial contributions should be at an
  appropriate level

23
The Panel
24
Meeting Objectives

• The primary role of the Panel is
• To generate a rank ordered list of research
  proposals in priority order for funding
• Based on
• the assessment of the referees
• proposers response to referees
• technical assessments from facilities (if
  relevant).

25
Role of The Panel

• Typically Consists of 8-12 members, drawn
  primarily from the EPSRC College.
• Panel Members do not
• Re-referee proposals
• Change the project
• Reduce the costs

26
Role of the Panel
Panels do.

• Act as a jury, weighing the evidence in front
  of them
• The proposal
• The referees comments
• The response made by the proposer

27
Assessment Criteria

• Primary criteria overall quality of proposals
• Other factors that may be taken into account
• The level of adventure in research
• Whether the research is multidisciplinary
• Involvement of new/young academics
• The presence of UK international collaboration

28
Speakers

• Each application will have two speakers selected
  from the panel. They will introduce the proposal
  and summarise the referees comments.
• Speaker 1 is usually a generalist
• Speaker 2 is the expert
• (closer to the research area concerned)

This guy is a genius
29
Funding Categories
FUND Recommended by the Panel for support
without reservation. This implies a very strong
steer to EPSRC to fund. FUNDABLE Should
deliver good quality research for the resources
requested. May be recommended with some minor
reservations. NOT FUNDABLE Proposals which
contain significant flaws and as presented do
not merit funding, even if sufficient funds are
available.
30
Decision Actions
Panel agree priority order
Budget agreed by Programme Manager
Applicants informed of decision (and feedback if
applicable)by UIM
Referees thanked and informed of decisions
Six month moratorium on resubmission of unfunded
proposals
31
Service Standards - EPSRC

• Manage the process of peer review in fair,
  transparent, timely and efficient manner
• Meet performance standards
• process 90 of research proposals to a decision
  within 26 weeks
• The NSF achieved 74 in 26 weeks in 2002
• Use best judgement in the selection of
  appropriate referees
• Request no more than 12 referee reports per
  calendar year
• Participation as a panel member no more than
  twice per calendar year.

32
Writing a proposal
Things to think about
33
The Basics

• Why do you want to do this research? (You need
  to convince your peers its worth doing and why
  you are the person to do it)
• Bear in mind the assessment criteria and
  audiences (use referee and panel prompts as a
  guide, see EPSRC website)
• Read all the guidance notes (dont fall at the
  first hurdle)

34
Good Proposals

• Are about excellent research
• And..
• Demonstrate the capability of applicants
• Are clear about the ideas work plan (what will
  be done when how the parts relate)
• Show novelty/added value
• Justify resources!
• Cite all key publications

35
Consider

• What would it be like to referee your proposal?
• Ensure peer reviewers will want to read it (are
  the title and abstract well written?)
• It can be hard to be objective so..
• Ask an experienced colleague to review your
  proposal
• And.
• Looking at successful proposals may help you with
  structure

36
Feedback, its important..

• Use your opportunity to respond to referee
  comments
• Response to referees is a key input to the
  process
• Read referee comments carefully and provide a
  balanced response

37
Remember

• Why do you want to do this research? You need
  to convince your peers its worth doing
• Bear in mind the assessment criteria and
  audiences (referee and panel prompts)
• Read guidance notes for completion of the form

38
And finally..

• There is no grantsmanship that will turn a bad
  idea into a good one, butThere are many ways
  to disguise a good one.

William Raub, Past Deputy Director, NIH
39
The Mock Panel
40
Panel Meetings - Process
First Pass speakers highlight

• Important issues identified by the referees

• Discrepancies between referees comments

• Comments on the general level of resources
  requested

• Propose a score on a scale 10-1

41
Research Quality Ranking
Definition Grade
Outstanding Good Unsatisfactory
10
9 8 7 6 5
Adequate
4 3
2 1
42
Panel Meetings - Process
Second Pass Panel should

• Review initial ranking

• Fine tune through further discussion

• Ensure that ranking criteria have been fairly
  and consistently applied

• Agree quality cut-off

43
The Mock Panel
44
Mock Panel Proposals - Outcomes -
45
Outcomes of Proposals

• 1. GR/R80889/01 Dr Geen
• GR/S82855/01 Prof. Nicol
• GR/R81541/01 Prof. Charlton
• EP/C006100/1 Prof. Keenan
• 5. GR/S98726/01 Dr Osborne
• 6. GR/R85440/01 Prof. OHearn
• 7. GR/R87970/01 Dr Ockendon GR/R87994/01 Prof.
  Lawrence
• 8. GR/T09156/01 Dr Fangohr
• 9. EP/C002482/1 Dr Reiff-Marganiec
• 10. EP/C52652X/1 Dr Klumpner

46
Further Information
Robin HaydenTel 01793 444046e-mail
robin.hayden_at_epsrc.ac.uk
University Interface Manager
www.epsrc.ac.uk
Website