ARC Tips and Tricks

1
ARC Tips and Tricks

• Professor Andrew Cheetham
• PVC Research Information Management
• University of Canberra

Professor Cheetham would like to acknowledge
input and advice from the ARC in compiling this
presentation. In particular discussions and
contributions from Professor Lawrence Cram.
2
The Agenda

• Some History
• The Assessment Criteria
• The Scoring System
• The Assessment Weightings
• Features of Top Ranked applications
• Features of Low Ranked applications
• How to interpret the comments
• Some tips

3
Discovery Projects 2000-2007
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Applications 3,494 3,482 3,078 3,574 3,240 3,413 3,742 4,033
Funded 720 761 784 942 875 1,051 917 822
Success rate 20.6 21.9 25.5 26.4 27.0 30.8 25 20.4
4
Linkage Projects 2001-2006
Scheme Linkage Projects APAI only TOTAL
2001 LP 484 (53.3) 426 (49.8) 910 (51.6)
2002 LP R1 430 (45.8) 231 (55.4) 691 (49.2)
2002 LP R2 409 (42.5) 171 (50.9) 580 (45)
2003 LP R1 324 (50.9) 144 (46.5) 468 (49.6)
2003 LP R2 426 (56.3) 155 (39.4) 581 (51.8)
2004 LP R1 340 (53.8) 123 (43.9) 436 (51.2)
2004 LP R2 443 (45.8) 142 (33.8) 585 (42.9)
2005 LP R1 434 (40.8) 94 (17.9) 529 (36.7)
2005 LP R2 483 (38.5) 94 (28.3) 577 (35.7)
2006 LP R1 423 (45.2) 62 (27.4) 485 (42.9)
Typical Success rate is about 50
5
The Assessment Text Criteria

• Assessors are asked to use the following Text
  Criteria
• Outstanding Of the highest merit, at the
  forefront of international research in the field.
  Fewer than 2 of applications should lie in in
  this band.
• Excellent. Strongly competitive at
  international levels. Fewer than 20 of
  applications should lie in this band.
• Very good. An interesting, sound, compelling
  proposal. Approximately 30 of applications will
  have a score in this band.
• Good. A sound research proposal that lacks a
  compelling element in some respect.
  Approximately 30 of applications are likely to
  fall into this band.
• Fair. The proposal has potential, but requires
  significant development to be supportable. Up to
  20 of applications are likely to lie in this
  band or the next lower one.
• Flawed. The proposal has one or more fatal
  flaws.

6
Scores Vs Distribution
Score
Outstanding
100
90
Excellent
Successful (Discovery)
85
80
Very Good
Successful (Linkage)
80
50
Good
75
20
Fair
70
0
F L A W E D
0
Note the important difference between the
numerical scores and the distribution of the Text
Criteria
7
Score weights
Discovery Linkage
Investigators Track Records 40 20
Significance and Innovation 30 25
Approach (and Training) 20 20
National Benefit 10 10
Commitment of Industry Partner N/A 25
8
Top-ranked applications

• There are several features that Top Ranked
  Applications have in common
• Manage to balance technicality and accessibility
• Present problems and/or controversies and explain
  how they will solve them
• Explain how the momentum of the subject demands
  funding now
• Show how Australian work fits into the
  international picture
• Set their work in the context of the National
  Priority Framework
• Back up compelling claims with evidence and
  others' judgments
• Carefully temper ambitious goals with plausible
  approaches
• Display evidence of responsible but often daring
  approaches to the problem
• Chief Investigators have demonstrable evidence of
  strong international track records
• Present excellent progress reports on previous
  grants

9
Low-ranked applications

• Not surprisingly, Low Ranked Applications also
  have features in common
• Use too much technical jargon.
• Make grandiose and implausible claims about
  outcomes.
• Don't support claims of excellence or progress
  with evidence.
• Relate to "backwater" research with no momentum.
• Are weakly linked into national and international
  research networks
• Tend to emphasise the collection of data rather
  than the solution of controversies
• Set a negative or depressive tone about the state
  of the subject in Australia
• Contain a high rate of spelling, grammatical and
  technical errors.
• Often have unedited nonsense in the text (it is
  sometimes unclear whether this is inadvertent)

10
How to read an assessment

• Assessors tend to be kind and circumspect in
  their criticism.
• The words good and very good are not superior
  to outstanding and excellent.
• The absence of outstanding and excellent MAY
  be code for good but not among the best
• Look on assessor text as bad news rather than
  good news it is rare for adverse criticisms
  to not be coded in the text, and the EAC will be
  looking for evidence of this harmony between rank
  and text.
• Dont assume that bland positive statements are
  favourable to you other applications are
  probably getting HOT POSITIVE comments
• Remember that EAC members see all the assessment
  texts together
• Risky and innovative by itself might be good
  news, but if another assessor says improbably
  ambitious the two texts reinforce a possible
  weakness.
• Adds important knowledge may be positive, but
  maybe not if another assessor says only limited
  value since this is a rather pedestrian extension
  of earlier work by the applicant

11
Some ARC advice

• Start early
• Discovery
• at least 9 months before the deadline
• Have the grant complete 2 months before for peer
  review and polishing
• Linkage
• Building relationships with possible industry
  partners should begin 18 months before the
  deadline
• No track record? (40 of Discovery Score, 25
  of Linkage)
• forget it, get funds from elsewhere to build your
  track record
• The current Australian Competitive Grant register
  is over three pages long
• Partner only mildy interested? (25 of Linkage
  score)
• forget it, the readers will notice build the
  relationship
• Transparency and clarity of the application is
  everything