Presenting your ARC Track Record

1
Presenting your ARC Track Record
2

• Some issues to consider when preparing your
  application
• National Competitive Grants Australian Research
  Council
• Proposal is written like a top journal article
  from Introduction to the end of the Methodology
  section (including method of analysis)
• A Discovery application is an academic
  argument on how to advance the academic
  field/knowledge to prove this is a significant
  idea
• Has specific, consistent, meaningful research
  objectives Research Questions/hypotheses derived
  from a critical literature review research
  questions are matched to studies proposed in the
  Approach
• The proposal is written consistent with how the
  selection criteria is scored

3

• ARC continued
• Track Record or Research Record Relative to
  Opportunities (Discovery 40 of the selection
  criteria 20 for Linkage) of the research
  team/sole chief investigator
• Significance and innovation (Discovery 30 of
  the selection criteria Linkage 25) of the
  proposed research. Critical literature review an
  integral part of the application
• Approach (DP and LP20) For example, must be
  specific and matched to research
  questions/hypotheses)
• National Benefit (DP LP 10) Application of
  results matched to the published national
  benefits (can be more than one)
• Industry Partner Commitment for Linkage (only)
  25
• Do multiple drafts, get critical feedback from
  colleagues, do a pilot study to demonstrate
  feasibility
• Funding rules and the guidelines to applicants
  must be read thoroughly, boring though they are.
  They describe changes from previous years round

4

• Track Record (or Research Record Relative to
  Opportunities, Section F12, 2011 Linkage
  application) in detail
• Track record of ALL chief investigators, partner
  investigators (e.g. overseas universities),
  Australian Postdoctoral Fellows (plus QE II and
  APD Industry if a Linkage proposal) candidates
  relative to opportunities and, where relevant,
  suitability to supervise postgraduate students
• Capacity to undertake and manage the proposed
  research
• What is assessed?
• Impact (quality) of research outcomes and
  productivity of individuals and teams is
  assessed
• Productivity in terms of numbers of
  publications, numbers of HDR supervision and
  completions, etc.
• The impact of academic research outcomes is
  assessed particularly by qualitative comments
  provided in the application (both for Discovery
  and Linkage) and looking at where an individual
  has published and how frequently their
  publications are cited.

5

• Track record/research record relative to
  opportunities cont.
• Broader impact of research outcomes is assessed
  particularly by qualitative comments provided in
  your application with the key question being
  asked, How have your research outcomes made a
  difference to the world?
• Suitability to supervise higher degree research
  students where you are requesting financial
  support for a scholarship. Judged primarily on
  numbers of HDR students an individual has
  supervised and completed.
• Capacity readers are looking for demonstrated
  evidence that
• the skills of the research team match those
  required for the project (evidenced mainly
  through publication track record)
• where there is a team, that it can work together
  (evidence of prior history of collaboration)

6

• Assessment of Capacity continued
• - For Linkage proposals, a track record of
  collaboration with industry partner
  organisations
• - If a medium sized grant is being sought
  (150,000 to lt500,000 p.a.), then your track
  record in managing and successfully completing
  large projects is important (especially ARC
  projects)
• What is meant by track record relative to
  opportunity?
• Track records are assessed relative to the
  opportunity an individual has had to undertake
  research and produce research outcomes
• In theory, an early career researcher with a
  short but excellent research track record should
  rank higher than a professor whose recent
  research track record has not been productive in
  terms of research outcomes

7

• Track record relative to opportunity continued
• Periods of disruption to research careers are
  also taken into account in assessing track record
• Assessment of track record relative to
  opportunity will not advantage applicants with
  very poor (or no) research track records,
  regardless of the reasons for poor research
  output
• For Linkage applications, it is not uncommon to
  include partner investigators on the research
  team who do not have traditional academic
  research track records. Although the reasons for
  the lack of research outputs will be taken into
  account, there is nonetheless an expectation of
  an equivalent track record from such investigators

8
Team Applications For Linkage Should we
include Partner Investigators from Partner
Organisations If a potential Partner Investigator
(PI) brings special skills (that can be
demonstrated in the application) to the project
that will add value and would not otherwise be
available to the project, and they can make a
significant intellectual contribution, then it is
worth including them as a PI. Should you include
early career researchers as Chief
Investigators? If an early career researcher has
a good track record relative to opportunity and
has the demonstrated skills capacity (especially
demonstrated through peer-reviewed publications)
to make a significant contribution to the
project, then yes.
9

• ECRs as Cis continued
• Options for ECRs
• If modest track record (or no track record)
• Include the ECR as an associate on the project
  (that is, they will not have the status of a CI
  and their role will need to be explained in the
  Role of Personnel section no salary is being
  paid from the project budget)
• Seek a salary for, say, a Research Associate so
  that their time may be bought out to allow
  involvement in the project (need to be named in
  the budget costing and budget justification
  sections, otherwise ACU HR may require the
  position to be advertised if it is greater than
  two years)

10
Presentation of Application that is directly
relevant to track record assessment Role of
Personnel This section gives readers an outline
of the roles and contributions of the whole
research team (Chief Investigators, post docs, as
well as associates and personnel whose salary or
stipend is being sought in the budget). A few
sentences to describe the role of each person
involved in the project. Note A senior CI or
PI given only a minor role such as mentoring of
an early career researcher may be considered
ineligible due to the eligibility criteria that a
CI must make a significant intellectual
contribution and time commitment to the project.
An assessor/ARC panel may also determine that
such a person has been added primarily to boost
overall team track record, especially where other
named investigators track records are poor to
moderately good.
11
Role of Personnel cont. Note 2 Be careful that
the roles described are consistent with the time
commitments described elsewhere in your
application (e.g. Approach and Training) Project
Cost The budget section must include detail
about the time commitments of personnel on the
project who are either named personnel (CIs, PIs,
Aust.Postdoc.Fellowships) or personnel whose
salaries or stipends have been requested. The
salaries and time commitments of Chief
Investigators are entered under (a) Administering
Organisation Contributions and/or (b) Other
Organisation Contributions. (The salaries and
time commitments of Partner Investigators from
Partner Organisations for a Linkage application
are entered under Partner Organisation
Contributions. The salaries and time commitments
or Partner Investigators who are not from Partner
Organisations are detailed in the Justifications
of Partner Organisation and other non-ARC
contributions. A 100 FTE contribution is
detailed automatically under the ARC budget for
any APDI Fellowships requested in Linkage. At
Project Cost section of the proposal, describe
Chief Investigator or Partner Investigator
salaries (as relevant) in the following way CI1
Professor ...., Level E2 _at_ FTE 28 salary
costs.)
12

Tip Readers usually cross-reference the time
commitment with the Role of Personnel section to
see if the role of a person appears to be
consistent with their time commitment. Tip A
time commitment of less than 0.15 will often be
looked at very closely with a view to verifying
whether the role of the person comprises a
significant intellectual contribution. If it is
deemed not be a significant contribution, then
the application could be ruled ineligible or the
track record assessment will suffer.
13
Details on your career and research opportunities
over the last five years Detail to include A
summary of research publications track record
including a focus on impact (CI 1 has published
50 journal articles including 35 in the last five
years, of which 20 were published in journals
with an ERA ranking of A or A and are directly
relevant to this project). ERA rankings will be
recognised by Australian assessors but not by
international assessors. You could also add the
number of articles published in international
journals in the given field(s) of research. A
summary of higher degree research supervision
track record (Dr John Doe currently supervises 3
PhD and 3 Research Masters scholars, and during
his career has supervised 11 PhDs and 9 Research
Masters scholars to completion. Many of his
students have gone on to highly successful
careers, including to academic appointments at
University College London, MIT and
Carnegie-Mellon University and high level
positions in government and industry.
14
Career and Research Opportunities cont. A
summary of research grant, contract research and
consulting track record. Collaboration with your
CIs and Partner Investigators to be
highlighted. Tip Be up to date on the key
research performance indicators in your area of
research and in particular the benchmarks that
are considered indicators of excellence. Where
your track record meets or exceeds excellence,
press the point in your application. Tip
Benchmarks for excellence (that can be
demonstrated) vary considerably between
disciplines, so dont assume that the
assessor/panel will know your benchmarks tell
them back up your claim of excellence with
evidence.
15
Scholarly impact ask yourself what positive
difference has my research made to my field?
Think of the national and international impact of
your research as the latter is an important
indicator of excellence. Scale of impact
greater and more enduring the better. Justify and
demonstrate. In 2008 (name of CI) developed a new
survey instrument for the testing of .....
ability that is now used in more than 12 OECD
countries, including Australia. This research has
been cited 120 times in international journals
with high impact (provide example). This research
is at the cutting edge of innovative educational
research and has had a substantial impact across
a number of developed countries.
16
Tips - Dont use the same Research record
relative to opportunities section (F 13) of your
application for every ARC application you
prepare. Re-draft the section/sub-sections
relevant tot he project being applied for. -
For Linkage, highlighting your track record of
collaboration with partner organisations is
important, particularly if you can demonstrate a
history of collaboration with the same sector as
the partner organisation on the proposal. -
Highlight your track record of working with other
named investigators on the application. Many ARC
expert panel members do not rate team track
records highly if a team has no history of
successful prior collaboration.
17
Tips cont. - Dont provide half a page of dense
text. Break it down in to dot-points or a least 2
to 3 paragraphs. - Dont just provide a list of
research key performance indicators (KPIs). KPIs
are not interesting and dont on their own do
enough to differentiate you from other
applicants. You need to explain what is
interesting and unique about your research
contributions, so dont be demure but dont make
claims which cannot be verified. Recent and
Significant Publications (section F13.2) -
Ensure you follow the instructions for this
section. Some common errors are - Incomplete
referencing, to the extent that the reader cannot
verify that the article is published
18

• Recent publications continued
• Including journal articles and conference papers
  that have undergone an acceptable peer review
  process
• Including publications that have not been either
  accepted or published and are not in-press
• Including publications that are older than the
  specified period (last five years)
• Including publications that the reader does not
  consider significant
• Tips
• - Add ERA journal rank, journal impact factor or
  citations data in square brackets that can be
  benckmarked as excellent.

19

• Tips cont. Recent significant publications
• Is you publication track record lacking numbers
  of publications in high impact international
  journals? Are most of your publications in
  refereed conference proceedings, or perhaps
  published as reports to government? Is the reason
  for this stated as a preamble to the Recent
  significant publications section of your
  application.
• Be cautious how you define significant.
• Asterisk publications relevant to the proposal
  in a way that the asterisks can be easily seen.
• For Linkage Partner investigators from Partner
  Organisations Partner Investigators may have
  only a minimal publication track record or
  possibly none at all.

20

• Ten Best Career Publications (sec. 13.3 in
  Discovery)
• Ensure you include recent (past five years)
  publications in this list as well as older ones
  (if your career has been longer). If no recent
  publications have been included, the impression
  is given of a downward trajectory.
• As explained earlier, add ERA journal rank,
  journal impact factor or citations data in square
  brackets after journal articles that can be
  benchmarked as excellent.
• You can also add a brief sentence or so after
  each publication explaining why you have selected
  it for inclusion in this section.

21

• Further Evidence in relation to research impact
  and contributions to the field over the last 10
  years (section F13.4 in DP,F12.4 in LP)
• Use dot points or short paragraphs covering one
  topic per block.
• Long lists (e.g. Keynote addresses) will
  typically not be read.
• Chief Investigators with limited academic
  research track records.
• Linkage Partner Investigators Relevant
  experience in industry and other professional
  activities should be added.

22

• Interruptions to career or other circumstances
  that may have slowed down research and
  publications (covered in F13.1 DP or F12.1 LP)
• Heavy teaching responsibilities are not normally
  considered to be a reasonable excuse for an
  average or poor research track record because
  heavy teaching responsibilities are common among
  applicants.
• Balance discussion of disruption with positive
  statements to demonstrate that your research is
  now forging ahead.
• Early Career Researchers let the reader know
  that you are an ECR (i.e. Someone with no more
  than 5 years of research experience since award
  of your PhD).

23

• Fellowship applicants (F 13.6 DP F12.6 LP)
• If a team based application, be careful to
  differentiate the fellows role in the project,
  providing greater detail than would be provided
  on this under Role of Personnel (Part C Project
  Description)
• When describing the research environment, as
  well as mentioning standard infrastructure and
  specialised facilities/expertise available,
  discuss how the fellow and the project fall
  within an identified area of research strength of
  the University
• Identify a mentor and supervisor even if they
  are not named Cis on the application. If the
  fellowship will require the APD to learn new
  techniques and methods, ensure that appropriate
  intellectual expertise will be provided for
  training and mentoring.

24

• Statement on Progress
• Tips
• Only report positive progress
• List publication outcomes to date
• If there are no published outcomes to date but
  there are publications submitted or in
  preparation, discuss those to demonstrate that
  progress has been made.
• Presentation of Application
• - The whole application is important.

25

• Presentation continued.
• - A poorly developed, written and presented
  application will reflect poorly on your track
  record
• A well prepared and presented application will
  not fare well if it requires skills outside of
  the teams demonstrated expertise
• Aims Background (Part C)
• Background should include reference to work of
  the team (especially published work and also
  unpublished pilot work) to help demonstrate
  capacity and in-depth understanding of the
  research problem/s being addressed
• Approach and Training Demonstrate through
  reference to your published work and iterate that
  the team has the capacity to undertake the
  project using the approach described.

26
Aims and Background cont. National Benefit
Consider how the team track record can help to
demonstrate higher likelihood of achieving the
stated national benefit (e.g. Investigator
history of research outcomes leading to
government policy change, new survey instrument
being used by peers) Collaboration with partners
(particularly important for Linkage) Discussion
of prior successful collaborations with similar
kinds of partners can help to demonstrate a
higher likelihood of a successful collaboration
on this project. Communication of results how
does your track record of publications and public
communication and dissemination give confidence
of disseminating high quality output from this
project?