ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award Information for Researchers at the Please contact the following person within your Faculty to assist with preparing your All DECRA candidates who must claim career interruption to meet the. •applications submitted via RMS by Eligible Organisations by the relevant scheme closing date meeting. • the ARC College of Experts or a Selection Advisory Committee consider all proposals, rank each highly ranked proposals . like to become one then send: .. Panels meet in person to finalise recommendations. We are looking forward to the many exciting developments we have planned for IRMA If you would like to know more about IRMA NextGen then please email us at . new functionality for people and applications to interact with IRMA data and ARC's RMS supports exactly that, automating the processing of ARC funding.
If you would like information relating to our Integrated Research Management Application IRMAor a demonstration of its capabilities, please email sales universityoffice. As an Australasian-based research management systems provider, we are a proud long-term supporter of research management conferences and events in our region.
Congratulations Dr Brocklebank Proud! The module also enables accurate and efficient candidature milestone management; supervision and examiner tracking; submission date management; tracking of thesis submission; and tracking of examination reporting. We view this high-level partnership as the natural progression to the strong relationship that University Office and ARMS have developed over a number a years. In addition to these sponsorship commitments, University Office has also invested in staff undertaking ARMS accreditation.Arc North - Meant To Be (feat. Krista Marina) [Lyric Video]
We have a deep level of commitment to research management in Australasia and are pleased to offer our existing customers a leading integrated research management solution, as well as providing potential customers with a sophisticated set of solutions to the wide range of complex issues facing research managers in the region.
With this capability in place the University is better positioned to increase the quality and quantity of the research information it manages on behalf of its researchers. We are very pleased to continue our long association with ARMS, with being our third platinum sponsorship of the annual conference, and excited about taking a leading sponsorship role at the conference, which will mark a new era for ARMS.
Behind closed doors: Observing the ARC selection meeting | Australian Academy of Science
If you would like any information relating to IRMA research management system, or a demonstration, please email sales universityoffice. IRMA is now able to automatically harvest information from the service and display journal-specific open access rules on a publication-by-publication basis. The Carriage 1 member gave a brief or sometimes not so brief overview of each application, with reviews and rejoinders, and said whether they thought the application should be funded or not, with Carriage 2 then providing their input.
Each member of the panel could add their comments, questions or suggestions. If the application was deemed fundable by both carriages, with no member objections, it was marked as fundable. If both carriages believed it did not warrant funding, then it was marked as not funded.
When the carriages disagreed, the decision about whether to shortlist it went to a vote; this decided whether the application should be revisited at a later point.
If all members voted not to shortlist the application, it was not funded. Where highly ranked applications, well within the funding range, were not funded, a reason had to be given. For applications nearer the uncertainty band ranked higher than around ofall members had to vote as to whether it was funded or not, even when both carriages agreed that it was fundable. After the top-ranked applications had been discussed, the flagged applications were discussed. These were the applications where the external reviewers disagreed with the carriage members; in this case the rejoinders and the comments of the reviewers became important in determining differences in ranking.
Once funding for the higher-ranked applications had been agreed on, shortlisted applications were reviewed. At this point, five additional applications were selected as backups; this was to ensure that if some applications were later deemed conflicted or double dipping, or if they were withdrawn, additional applications could be awarded.
For each application, after funding was either approved or denied, the budget was discussed. At this stage, unnecessary funding requests were removed, while ensuring that the research could still be completed. The funding range appeared to be similar to last year, with around 65 per cent of project costs funded.
What counts in the selection process? The following points discuss my observations on the process remembering that these are not necessarily ARC policy.
Grant allocation Generally there were only about 2—3 minutes available to discuss the top applications, with more needed for ones lower on the list. Reviewer expertise was valued; the opinion of a very experienced reviewer held more weight than one looking only at a single application.
Reviewers giving short reviews were not looked on favourably.
The CoE considered that if a contributor was going to be fundamental to the project they should be included as a chief investigator CIrather than as a named postdoc. Junior CIs with senior mentorship were viewed positively.
Some of the comments from members suggested that the publication of research papers held more weight than opinion papers, or lots of reviews. Rejoinders were only really discussed for lower-ranked applications, but they did help to get some applications over the line. Part-way down the rankings, it was recognised that more applications had been awarded to male CIs than female CIs.
Following this, in deciding between two equally ranked applications, preference was given to the female CI to ensure gender equity. One member commented that it often took around eight years post-PhD for a researcher to attain a sufficient track record to be an independent CI. Budget allocations There had to be very strong justifications for all budget items, otherwise they would be cut. Generally, funding appeared to be suited to funding one postdoc, some maintenance and a little travel.
Requesting much more than this required a very clear justification. The view was that a postdoc must bring existing skills that are vital to the project—otherwise a PhD student could be trained. RHD scholarships were often cut; requests for four-year stipends were viewed unfavourably they should be three to three-and-a half years only. Teaching relief required strong justification. Travel was only supported if deemed necessary for project completion, with timing being very important; travel needed to be an asset to the project.
If a senior postdoc was included in the budget, the panel questioned why they were not a CI.