1. art and entertainment
2. theatre
3. theatre awards

How to get funding from the
Australian Research
Council
Keith Jones
ARC College of Experts
Biological Sciences and
Biotechnology Panel
[email protected]
Plan of talk
•  ARC funding schemes (here focus on
Discovery Projects)
•  The review process and marking for
DPs
•  Selection criteria for DPs
•  Medical and Dental based Research
ARC Background: funding schemes
•  Major funding schemes are:
•  Discovery Projects (3-5 year)
•  Linkage Projects - involves partner
organisation(s)
•  Fellowships (APD, ARF/QE2, APF, and
Future Fellows) + coming soon ‘Super
Fellows’.
•  Initiatives eg “Bionic Eye”
ARC Background: Discovery Projects
Discovery Projects: focus of this talk
Linkage Projects: applications have a 40%
funding success rate. Go for these if you can
find a PARTNER ORGANISATION.
Fellowships:
APDs- <2yrs from PHD
ARFS/QEIIS- <8 yrs from PHD
Future fellows 5-15yrs from PHD
APF- Professorial Fellows
Discovery Projects are most popular
funding scheme from ARC
ARC is set a govt target of funding ~20% of DPs.
It meets this target:
Discovery Projects do have small budgets
(and you get less than you asked for)
As a consequence of the govt target many funded
grants get much less than the requested budget:
Average Discovery Project lasts 3
years and get 120K per year
•  Most DPs last 3 years and ask for ~
$100-120K per year:
Discovery Projects: what you can
ask for and what you get.
•  Many DPs fall into a relatively simple mix of
funding, this equates to:
•  One Research Associate (Level A6) at
$80,000 pa. (first postdoc position).
•  Lab Consumables at $20,000 pa.
…however DPs do also fund:
Research Assistants (no PHD)
Senior Research Associates (experienced postdocs)
Much higher lab costs
Fieldwork
Etc…….
ARC awards one line budgets to
Discovery Projects
•  ARC give ‘one line budgets’, i.e. award
letters just give the amount awarded per
year. Usually it is up to the CIs to
manage the budget and decide how to
spend this. (this is especially important
given the requested amount is nearly
always above the awarded amount).
College of Experts
•  ARC has 6 panels across the
disciplines composed of ~10-12
members. Collectively known as the
“College of Experts”.
Biological Sciences and Biotechnology (BSB)
Engineering and Environmental Science (EE)
Humanities and Creative Arts (HCA)
Mathematics, Information and Communication Sciences (MIC)
Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences (PCE)
Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences (SBE)
How grants get reviewed : (1) what you see
March SUBMIT GRANT
June RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM OZREADERS and
INTREADERS
June WRITE REJOINDER
October RECEIVE NOTIFICATION
How grants get reviewed : (2) what you don’t see
March SUBMIT GRANT
April: ARC finds 2 “OzReaders”
April: CoE member finds 2-3 “IntReaders”
April-June: 2 CoE members read grant
June: Grant score from CoEs, Oz/IntReaders
June: Comments of Oz/Int readers sent out
June RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM OZREADERS and
INTREADERS
June WRITE REJOINDER
August: CoE meeting to discuss grants
October RECEIVE NOTIFICATION
OzReaders
•  Grants sent to them based on RCFD/
FOR codes from the ARC panel’s
Executive Officer
•  Will be based in Australia
•  Will read 2-17 grants (my experience!)
with average ~8.
•  Will be paid.
IntReaders
•  Grants sent to them based on RCFD/
FOR codes, personal acquaintance
from ARC College of Expert
•  Will be based in Australia/Overseas
•  Will read 1-6 grants (my experience!)
with average ~2.
•  Will not be paid.
Rejoinder
•  You will see the detailed comments of
both OZ and INTREADERS and have
the opportunity to respond
•  You will never see comments of the
College of Experts = PROBLEM FOR
YOU!
IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THE MARKING OF
ARC DP GRANTS
ARC RANKING SYSTEM
•  The most important aspect of the ARC
system is that grants are ranked.
•  A high ranking will lead to funding.
•  The ranking system means that not all
markers carry the same weight (see
later)
College of Experts marking (1)
•  Each grant is given to 2 CoEs: EAC1the primary reader and EAC2 the
secondary reader. (Apologies: ARC
using this archaic acronym)
Two of these arrive from ARC
Filled with ~100-150 GRANTS!
College of Experts marking (2)
•  Both EACs read the grant.
•  They give marks (see later).
•  This results in a ranked list of grants:
from 1/130 to 130/130.
•  EAC1s send their rankings to EAC2s
•  EACs consult each other on grants that
are ranked differently (>30% in percent
rankings).
•  EACs reconcile marks (AND MAY read
INT/OZ reader comments). (JUNE)
College of Expert members compile tables
and send to each other to reconcile:
number
DPXXXX
DPXXXX
DPXXXXX
DPXXXXX
DPXXXX
DPXXXX
DPXXXX
DPXXXX
DPXXXXX
DPXXXX
DPXXXXX
DPXXXX1
DPXXXX
DPXXXX
DPXXX
DPXXX
DPXXX
DPXXXX
DPXXXX
DPXXX
DPXXXXX
DPx
CI
Dr A Success
Dr O No
panel
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
BSB
EAC1
EAC2
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
Jones
rank /94
pct rank
rank/130
pct rank
6
94.7
2
99.2
-4.5 OKAY!
12
88.3
1
100.0
-11.7 OKAY!
25
74.5
29
78.5
-4.0 OKAY!
26
73.4
31
76.9
-3.5 OKAY!
32
67.0
71
46.2
20.9 OKAY!
33
66.0
45
66.2
-0.2 OKAY!
36
62.8
63
52.3
10.5 OKAY!
39
59.6
80
39.2
20.3 OKAY!
46
52.1
50
62.3
-10.2 OKAY!
47
51.1
74
43.8
7.2 OKAY!
48
50.0
65
50.8
-0.8 OKAY!
52
45.7
105
20.0
25.7 OKAY!
53
44.7
41
69.2
-24.5 OKAY!
59
38.3
75
43.1
-4.8 OKAY!
37
61.7
23
83.1
-21.4 OKAY!
67
29.8
70
46.9
-17.1 OKAY!
69
27.7
96
26.9
0.7 OKAY!
72
24.5
129
1.5
22.9 OKAY!
77
19.1
99
24.6
-5.5 OKAY!
80
16.0
102
22.3
-6.4 OKAY!
86
9.6
106
19.2
-9.7 OKAY!
88
7.4
109
16.9
-9.5 OKAY!
90
5.3
125
4.6
0.7 OKAY!
College of Experts marking (3)
•  EACs receive a long list of TOTAL
RANKINGS from ARC.
•  ARC ask them if they are happy with the
final rankings
•  ARC ask EACs to look at rejoinders IF
NECESSARY
•  ARC ask EACs to look at BUDGET for
all those in top 30%.
Rankings received by EAC from ARC
ProjectId
WAvPctRank
EAC1Name
EAC1Ranked
EAC2Name
EAC2Ranked
OZ1Ranked
OZ2Ranked
Int1Ranked
Int2Ranked
DP1091
81.7 Jones
6 of 130
A
23 of 131
1 of 8
3 of 6
2 of 2
3 of 3
DP1092
70.4 Jones
27 of 130
R
50 of 117
2 of 6
2 of 5
0 of 0
0 of 0
DP1093
10.8 Jones
128 of 130
S
110 of 110
11 of 14
5 of 9
2 of 2
0 of 0
DP1094
73.5 Jones
49 of 130
A
8 of 131
1 of 3
0 of 0
3 of 3
3 of 5
DP1095
62.5 Jones
95 of 130
D
21 of 131
2 of 2
2 of 15
0 of 0
0 of 0
DP1096
54.2 Jones
109 of 130
C
84 of 134
1 of 13
1 of 17
2 of 3
0 of 0
DP1097
85.9 Jones
38 of 130
B
5 of 134
2 of 12
1 of 2
0 of 0
0 of 0
DP1098
40.2 Jones
43 of 130
A
111 of 131
3 of 3
0 of 0
1 of 1
0 of 0
DP1091,7 : in top 20%, will get funded. EAC1 looks at budget.
DP1093,5,6,8 : too low to consider further.
DP1092,4 : in top 30%. EAC1 will look at budget but probably not
funded.
ARC guidance to EAC: change WAPR
(WAvPctRank) score conservatively (= usually by 5
or less)
How the WAPR score is calculated
• 
The rank value from each assessor is converted into a percent rank value. For a
given assessor, their highest ranked proposal receives a percent rank value of
100, their lowest ranked proposal receives a percent rank value of 0, and other
ranked proposals are distributed uniformly in-between. The actual formula is:
•  Percent Rank = 100×(1 – (rank - 1)/(n – 1))
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
where ‘n’ is the number of proposals read by the assessor.
For a given Proposal, a calculated WAPR value includes EAC1, EAC2, and Oz/
IntReader assessor scores. This is done by using weights corresponding to the
number of proposals that the assessor has read. For EACs, the weight is limited to a
maximum of 25, so that the EAC score does not completely dominate the weighted
average.
This gives a single value for each proposal, which ranges from 0 to 100, and which
takes into account rank information from each EAC and Oz/IntReader. Some broad
observations about this value are:
Where the value is high, most assessors have tended to rank the Proposal highly.
Where the value is low, most assessors have tended to rank the Proposal poorly.
Where the value is intermediate, either most assessors tended to rank the Proposal
towards the middle, or else there are significant differences of opinion between
assessors.
Assessors who read only a few proposals have little influence on the value.
Example of WAPRs in action for a grant
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
EAC 1 (Rank 10/130) WAPR = 93.02 (weight = 25)
EAC 2 (Rank 5/ 100) WAPR = 95.96 (weight = 25)
OZ 1 (Rank 3 / 6) WAPR= 60 (weight = 6)
OZ 2 (Rank 2 / 5) WAPR= 75 (weight 5)
INT 1 (Rank 1/1) WAPR=100 (weight = 1)
Weight = number of grants reviewer has done (EACs=25,
otherwise their scores would outweigh all others)
In above example Total Weight = 25+25+6+5+1= 62
FINAL WAPR= weighted average of individual WAPRs=
93.02x(25/62) + 95.96x(25/62) + 60x(6/62) + 75x(5/62) +
100x(1/62) = 89.67
Important points from last slide
•  EACs rankings are VERY IMPORTANT
as they do tend to outweigh OZ/
INTReaders
•  But remember researchers only get OZ
and INTREADER comments to prepare
their rejoinder.
•  Therefore often a mismatch between
comments for rejoinder and grant
success.
What gets discussed at ARC meeting in August?
March SUBMIT GRANT
April: ARC finds 2 “OzReaders”
April: CoE member finds 2-3 “IntReaders”
April-June: 2 CoE members read grant
June: Grant score from CoEs, Oz/IntReaders
June: Comments of Oz/Int readers sent out
June RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM OZREADERS and
INTREADERS
June WRITE REJOINDER
August: CoE meeting to discuss grants
October RECEIVE NOTIFICATION
August College of experts (EACs)
meeting (1)
•  ARC have collated all the WAPRs and
have got back from EACs any amended
(<5 WAPR points) scores.
•  ARC have instructed EACs to prepare
budgets for each grant they have in
which the WAPR is >70%.
August College of experts (EACs)
meeting (2)
•  Nearly all the discussion is on
BUDGET.
•  The panel starts with the top ranking
grant, agrees budget, then moves on to
the next ranked…..
•  Budget is a debate held usually
between EAC1 and EAC2 (ie two panel
members who have read the grant)
August College of experts (EACs)
meeting (3)
•  If your grant WAPR is <70%, then your
grant will not even be mentioned.
•  Little/no scientific debate on grants are
held.
•  All the above is to do with the volume of
grants (~800) being dealt with by one
panel. It takes ~3 days to do budgets on
150-175 grants.
Take home message for
grant success based on this
assessment process
•  The two most important readers
of your grant will be (nonspecialist) College of Expert
members. Their rankings have a
disproportionately high
weighting.
Selection Criteria
Investigator(s) (40%)
-  track record relative to opportunities
-  capacity to undertake the proposed research
Significance and innovation (30%)
-  does the research address an important problem?
-  how will the anticipated outcomes advance the knowledge base of the discipline?
-  - is the research principally focussed upon a topic or outcome that falls within one of
the National Research Priorities and associated Priority Goals, and if so how does it
address the National Research Priority?
-  are the Proposal’s aims and concepts novel and innovative? - will new methods or
technologies be developed?
Approach (20%)
- are the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed,
well integrated and appropriate to the aims of the Proposal?
- how appropriate is the proposed budget?
National benefit (10%)
-  what is the potential of the research project to result in economic, environmental and/
or social benefits for Australia from the expected results and outcomes of the project?
-  what is the potential for the research to contribute to the National Research Priorities?
Investigators (40%)
How much of the 40% you get is dictated by what
you write in Section B of the DP:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
B10 Research Record Relative to Opportunities
B10.1 A statement on your most significant contributions to this research field.
The section must be completed. Outline your contribution to the relevant field, relative
to opportunity, focussing particularly on what makes this contribution interesting
and unique. (Maximum of half an A4 page.)
B10.2 Recent significant publications (in the past five years)
B10.3 Ten career-best publications
B10.4 Other evidence of impact and contributions to the field
B10.5 Any aspects of your career or opportunities for research that are relevant
to assessment and that have not been detailed elsewhere in this Proposal.
B10.1 A statement on your most significant
contributions to this research field
•  Common mistakes:
Verbose writing: go for CLARITY.
SHORT and SIMPLE text is BEST.
Grandiose claims and unsubstantiated
claims: “I am a world leader in my field”.
It’s amazing how many ‘world leaders’ we
have in Australia.
B10.1 A statement on your most significant
contributions to this research field
•  Common mistakes:
Verbose writing: go for CLARITY.
SHORT and SIMPLE text is BEST.
Grandiose claims and unsubstantiated
claims: “I am a world leader in my field”.
It’s amazing how many ‘world leaders’ we
have in Australia.
My statement:
•  Over the past 7 years my lab pioneered the use of Fluorescent
Proteins to study the process of meiosis in real-time (which was
then first published in Nixon et al, Current Biology 2002). This
approach of studying a dynamic process such as fertilization by
real-time methods based on imaging and fluorescent protein
techniques continues to be developed in this grant application. It
has allowed my lab to make major breakthroughs in our
understanding of how meiosis is controlled at a molecular level (eg
Gorr et al, Nature Cell Biology 2006; Reis et al, Nature Cell Biology
2006; and Reis et al, Nature Cell Biology 2007).
B10.2 Recent significant publications
(in the past five years)
• 
• 
• 
Highlight your position on the paper (just to make life easy for referees):
Reis A, Levasseur M, Chang H-Y, Elliott DJ & Jones KT (2006). The
CRY box: a second APCcdh1-dependent degron in mammalian cdc20.
EMBO Reports 7:1040-5.
Could include Impact Factor of journal/ ranking of journal in your
discipline if you want. Seems little point in including citation data as
some papers will only just be published. Unless adding citation number
helps you.
B10.3 Ten career-best publications
• 
Highlight your position on the paper; give impact factor of journal and
journal ranking in its discipline. Some people even include a summary
statement on the paper. If you do this do not make the mistake of
writing how wonderful the paper is: all are “breakthrough”, “major
development” etc papers. May be think about writing what your
contribution was:
•  Madgwick S, Hansen DV, Levasseur M, Jackson PK & Jones KT
(2006) Mouse Emi2 is required to enter meiosis II by reestablishing
cyclin B1 during interkinesis. Journal of Cell Biology 174:791-801.
[IF = 10.2, 15/156 Cell Biology. 28 Cites]
This was a collaborative project between my laboratory and that of Dr
Peter Jackson from the University of Stanford. I am sole
communicating author. Madgwick, a post-doc from my lab, is sole
first author.
B10.4 Other evidence of impact and
contributions to the field
• 
The keyword in the above is evidence. Avoid hyperbole, exaggeration
etc..
•  You could try:
Publications summary: “ I have published 52 research papers and 10
review articles. My work has been cited 646 times with an average
citation per publication of 25. My H-index is 22, and because my first
paper was published 11 years ago in 1998 my m-index is 2 (classified
as internationally outstanding, see Hirsch JE, PNAS 2005).
Also include:
Editorial roles on journals
Invitations to conferences etc…
Awards
Patents
B10.5 Any aspects of your career or
opportunities for research that are relevant to
assessment
•  Details of career breaks (eg maternity, long-term
illness).
•  Details of any institute movement affecting recent
performance.
•  Details of high teaching loads/ administrative duties
affecting past performance. DANGER: if this is not
historic, but current, YOUR ability to manage the project
and make it a success may be questioned.
Selection Criteria
Investigator(s) (40%)
-  track record relative to opportunities
-  capacity to undertake the proposed research
Significance and innovation (30%)
-  does the research address an important problem?
-  how will the anticipated outcomes advance the knowledge base of the discipline?
-  - is the research principally focussed upon a topic or outcome that falls within one of
the National Research Priorities and associated Priority Goals, and if so how does it
address the National Research Priority?
-  are the Proposal’s aims and concepts novel and innovative? - will new methods or
technologies be developed?
Approach (20%)
- are the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed,
well integrated and appropriate to the aims of the Proposal?
- how appropriate is the proposed budget?
National benefit (10%)
-  what is the potential of the research project to result in economic, environmental and/
or social benefits for Australia from the expected results and outcomes of the project?
-  what is the potential for the research to contribute to the National Research Priorities?
Selection Criteria
Significance and innovation (30%)
Approach (20%)
National benefit (10%)
ALL the above are detailed in SECTION E of proposal
SECTION E is 10 pages. ARC state that Section E is made up of:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
E1 Proposal Title
E2 Aims and Background
E3 Significance and Innovation
E4 Approach and Methodology
E5 National Benefit
E6 Communication of Results
E7 Role of Personnel
E8 References
Selection Criteria
Significance and innovation (30%)
Approach (20%)
National benefit (10%)
ALL the above are detailed in SECTION E of proposal
SECTION E is 10 pages. ARC state that Section E is made up of:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
E1 Proposal Title
E2 Aims and Background
E3 Significance and Innovation = 30%
E4 Approach and Methodology = 20%
E5 National Benefit =10%
E6 Communication of Results (NO MARKS!!!!!!)
E7 Role of Personnel (NO MARKS!!!!!!)
E8 References (NO MARKS!!!!!!)
Selection Criteria
•  E2 Aims and Background:
•  I give the following as guidance from personal experience:
•  Give 2-4 AIMS at start of Section E. Make AIMS clear and
concise. If reviewer doesn’t understand AIMS then getting their
excitement on grant is difficult. You must make grant easy to
read, so having aims upfront is important.
•  Include a Figure if possible to make it easy to take information
in.
•  KEEP BACKGROUND TO AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. This is not
a REVIEW.
•  SHOULD BE ONE PAGE ONLY
•  TRY TO FINISH PAGE ANSWERING QUESTION: WHY YOU
MUST FUND ME AND WHY IT MUST BE THIS YEAR (not next).
•  Good ideas are essential but a good idea on its own is not
enough. This year I has to assess 130 grants, all of them
contained good ideas.
•  Why me? Why now?
Selection Criteria
• 
• 
• 
• 
E3 Significance and Innovation (30%):
Breakdown S&I into subsections (with headings).
Aim for at least FOUR PAGES.
Traditional “Background” material could be included here,
such as preliminary data e.g. details of gene arrays you have
generated ; details on the breeding of a transgenic animal to
be used in the project.
•  Significance: why are the projects’ aims sufficiently important
that the ARC fund this work?
•  Innovation: what are you going to bring to the solving of the
problem? You may have a great idea, but are you going to
tackle the problem in a particularly inventive way, or use skills
that are unique to you?
•  Is there anything timely about the proposal that means that
funding must come this year?
Selection Criteria
•  E4 Approach and Methodology (20%):
•  This section is the detail on your project’s experiments.
•  Breakdown A&M into subsections (with headings), ideally
should have same headings as your stated Aims in E2.
•  Aim for at least THREE PAGES.
•  Try finishing off each subsection with a couple of sentence
summary “ Expected outcomes:” eg “here we would expect to show
that depletion of the enzyme CamKIIgamma3 from eggs would block fertilization.
This would be an important finding because many of the signaling components
used by the sperm have remained unresolved and we would have discovered
an essential component in this important biological event.
Selection Criteria
•  E5 National Benefit =10%:
This section should give details on your project’s national benefit.
•  Most grants make the case for how they fit into one National
Priority
http://www.arc.gov.au/about_arc/national_research_priorities.htm
•  Aim for at least ONE PAGE.
Medical and Dental Research
•  ARC does not fund medical or dental research. But how is
this defined?
•  Historically the decision has been left to College of
Experts’ interpretation.
•  Now the ARC have been more explicit in what constitutes
medical research.
http://www.arc.gov.au/applicants/md_research.htm
•  The above clarification was needed. Many researchers assume
WRONGLY that their research is too medical. The new
guidelines give a GREEN LIGHT to nearly all research work
conducted in our School.