Your Grant through Peer Review
Grant Application – Hints & tips
Janet Edwards
University Interface Manager
EPSRC Programme Operations
01793 444098
Janet.edwards@epsrc.ac.uk
Questions to ask yourself
before applying
•
What do I want to do?
•
What is available?
•
What makes this project an excellent idea?
•
What must I prepare for an application?
•
What is the process by which my proposal will be
judged?
Who is my audience?
•
Applying for Funding
Idea
Considerations:
• Should be – excellent science; creative; value for
money; adventurous; have significant impact (on
whom)?
• Is this appropriate for collaboration?
• Is this suitable for a multi-project programme?
• Is this multi-disciplinary?
• Suitable for long-term (more than 36 months)?
• Should/could this be a feasibility study?
Research Proposals
•
Responsive Mode (no closing dates)
• Research direction decided by applicant
• Main criterion is quality
• Includes First Grants, Overseas Travel Grants…
•
Calls for Proposals
•For research in a particular subject area
•Proposal must meet certain criteria to be
considered against the call
•Assessment criteria will be given
Good Proposals…
•
are about excellent research
• show novelty/added value
•
are clear about the ideas,
methodology and work plan
•
justify resources
• cite all key publications
Peer Review Process
•
HEI and Proposer
- skills and ideas
- research and resources
•
EPSRC
- responsibility for
managing the process
•
Referees
- expert opinions
•
Prioritisation Panel
- ranked list for funding,
based on ‘quality’
Proposals Include…
• Proposal Form (available from www.epsrc.ac.uk
All applications through J-es from 31 March 2005)
• Case for Support (up to 9 pages in total)
• Previous research track record (2 sides A4)
• Description of proposed research and
context (6 sides A4)
• Diagrammatic workplan (1 side of A4)
• Annexes can include
• Letters of support
• Equipment quotes
• 2 page CVs for Visiting Researchers
and named staff posts
Application form - About fEC…
•
•
Key changes
• Academic staff – cost (only time pre-fEC)
• Space charge – per full-time equivalent
• Indirect cost – per FTE
Terms of trade between HEIs & RCs
• RC pay 80% of fEC
• RC should meet close to 100% fEC by
2010
• Includes Fellowships
• Excludes project students
• 100% equipment cost over £50K
Headings for Funding fEC
•
•
Directly Incurred
• Staff – research, technician, fellows,
visiting researchers
• Travel & Subsistence
• Equipment (>£3000)
• Other costs
Directly Allocated
• Investigators
• Estates costs
• Other directly allocated costs
Headings for Funding fEC (2)
•
Indirect Costs
•
Exceptions
• Staff – project students outside fEC
• Equipment – if total cost over £50K
• Other costs
More guidance
• EPSRC Funding Guide (link on front
page of website)
•
The Form: Non-Funding Sections
•
•
•
•
Check call details – Specific criteria, deadlines
Title & Abstract – Understandable and informative
Objectives – Understandable, bullet points
Beneficiaries – includes benefit to UK plc, industry,
academics, research areas
• Nominated referees – consider carefully
• Cover letter – Additional info for EPSRC admin
Referees
Remit concerns
Writing a Case for Support
Refer to the Guidance notes
Use suggested section headings
Allow enough time
Have you thought
about…?
You should consider..
• what it would be like to referee the proposal
• having experienced colleagues “review” your
proposal
• looking at successful proposals - may help you
with structure
• whether panel members will want to read your
proposal (title and abstract well written)
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
•Use suggested headings for CFS
•Allow time for submission process
Peer Review Process
Proposal
Fund
Not Fund
Associate Programme
Manager
Programme
Manager
Referees:
Un-supportive
One from proposer
Two from College
EPSRC
‘College’
Budget
set by
Council
Rank order
Reject
Supportive
Proposer
responds to
referee
comments
Peer Review Panel
Applicant Response to Referees
•
Use this 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
The Referees
Allocation of Referees
• Referees selected include a minimum of:
- one of three referees nominated by applicant
- two College referees
• Other independent referees
• International referees
• Continuity for resubmissions
The EPSRC College
•
Members nominated by those active in EPSRC
research
•
Selection process involves more than 20,000
researchers
•
•
•
•
Current College active from January 2003 for 3 years
3800+ College members
Academics and non-academics
From July 2003 to June 2004:
• 83% College members invited to referee
• 16% College members invited to sit on Panels
Role of the Referee
• Referee comments are crucial to the
assessment procedure…
… and comments should be:
- detailed
- consistent with box markings
- constructive
“Do unto others………..”
Referees consider:
• ‘Blue skies’ research is perfectly acceptable
• Interdisciplinary research needs a broad view
• Involvement of industrial collaborators and
financial contributions should be at an
appropriate level for the research proposed
Referees Look For..
•Novelty / added value
• Capabilities of the applicants
•Related research
•Methodology
•Project plan
- context
- references
- milestones/deliverables
•Justification of resources
•Remember responsive mode is a flexible source of funding
Next Stage Actions
Associate Programme Manager considers:
•
Referees’ comments : not supportive
: supportive
•
reject
fund
go to panel
Referees’ comments fed back to applicant
The Panel
Where it All Happens… the EPSRC Peer Review Room
Grants Assessment Panel
•
8-12 people primarily drawn from College
-
rank proposals
provide comments for feedback
(where appropriate)
•
Two speakers per application
•
Continuity (panel and previous comments)
•
Names of Panel members are published on the
EPSRC website
Role of the Panel
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’ responses
technical assessments from facilities (if relevant)
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 usually closer to the area of research
being considered
This guy is a genius
Role of the Panel
The Panel should…
•Act as a ‘jury’, weighing the evidence in
of them:
front
Role of EPSRC Officials
•
Facilitate the meeting
•
Offer guidance on EPSRC rules and procedures
•
Record decisions and comments
•
Note any advice from the panel for feedback (eg
for invited resubmissions)
•
Outside of the meeting – determine the funding
cut-off and allocation of resources to the
competing proposals
Assessment Criteria
•
•
Primary criteria = overall quality of a proposal
Other factors to take into account where relevant:
-
the level of adventure in research
whether the research is multidisciplinary
involvement of new/young academics
the presence of UK & international collaboration
Guidance on Assessment
Panels are asked to:
•
Judge proposals as written - the programme of
work should not be changed
•
Avoid making changes to requested resources
•
Resist inviting resubmissions – unless the proposal
•
•
can be improved substantially
and will be highly competitive for funding
in its revised form
“Non-Standard” Proposals
The Panel may also be asked to consider:
 Platform Grant proposals
 First Grant proposals
 Network proposals
 Equipment rich proposals
 Other exceptional proposals
Such proposals will be ranked separately – where relevant .
First Grant Proposals
• Primary criteria = overall quality of a proposal
•Other factors:
- cost-effectiveness
- The PI’s plans for developing their
research career
- commitment from the university
• NB: The PI’s plans and the university commitment
should be clearly identified in the case for support
Panel Process
Speakers should highlight:
•
•
queries or concerns identified by the referees
•
significant discrepancies between referees’
comments
•
•
any specific feedback to the proposer(s)
whether the PI has responded satisfactorily to
these queries or concerns
propose a score on a scale 10-1
Research Quality
10
Outstanding
9
8
7
Good
6
5
4
Adequate
3
2
Unsatisfactory
1
Panel Process
The Panel should…
•
Review initial ranking
•
Fine tune if, necessary, through further
discussion
•
Be satisfied that ranking criteria have
been fairly and consistently applied
throughout the meeting
•
Agree quality cut-off
Decision Process
•
•
Priority order agreed by Panel
•
Applicants informed of decision in writing,
and receive any comments
•
Referees also informed of decisions on
applications
•
6 month moratorium
Budget agreed by Programme Manager
(after meeting) and funding cut-off set
Common “Myths”
•
It’s a lottery – if you put in enough
proposals, one is bound to get funded
•
•
•
Must have industrial collaboration
Have to ask for staff if you want equipment
There’s a minimum and maximum
size or duration for proposals
Peer Review – Process
Writing a good proposal
Referee stage
Panel stage
More Info on Web Site www.epsrc.ac.uk