Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council
Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN2 1ET Tel (01793) 444000
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ e-mail: infoline@epsrc.ac.uk Helpline (01793) 444100
Robin Hayden

University Interface Manager:
Durham, Newcastle, Northumbria, Sunderland, Teesside
Schemes:
EPSRC Je-S System Representative
Peer Review:
Panel Convenor (Engineering)

Overview of Process

Decision Actions

Running Panels

Service Standards
Opportunities for EPSRC funding
 Research
Responsive Mode and Calls for Proposals
First Grant Scheme, Platform Grants…
 Collaboration
Collaborative Training Accounts (CTAs)
Collaborative Research Grants
 People
Postgraduate Training
Fellowships
Networks
Public Understanding
EPSRC Expenditure 2004/5
£510 Million
CCLRC and other nonticketed domestic facilities 1%
Administration and
restructuring 4%
Postgraduate training and
Fellowship awards 27%
Research Grants 68%
Grants
£347M
Source: EPSRC Annual Report 2004-2005
Research Proposals
What are
they?
A flexible source
of funding.
What can I
apply for?
What do you
need?
Research Proposals
 Responsive Mode (no closing dates)
 Research direction decided by applicant
 Main criterion is quality
 Includes First Grants, Overseas Travel Grants,
Visiting Researchers…
Calls for Proposals (deadline for applications)
 For research in a particular subject area
 Proposal must meet certain criteria to be
considered against the call
 Assessment criteria will be given
Proposals include…
 Proposal form (available via Je-S)
Case for support (up to 8 pages in total)
 Previous research track record (2 sides A4)
 Description of proposed research &
context (6 sides A4)
 Diagrammatic Workplan (1 side of A4)
 Justification of Resources (1 side of A4)

Annexes can include
 Letters of support
 Equipment quotes
 2 page CVs for Visiting Researchers & named staff posts
Why FEC?





Concern that research at universities was under
resourced.
Poor understanding of the costs of research: only directly
attributable costs were being fully recouped; ‘overheads’
and long-run costs were not.
Universities are now required to have procedures that
establish the Full Economic Cost (FEC) of research.
To maintain the volume of research the government is
making extra funds available to the Research and Funding
Councils to cover the extra costs now identified
(additional £200M per annum for the Research Councils).
FEC currently covers Research Grants and Fellowships but
not training (e.g. project students, training grants)
Research Council funding
Pre-FEC
Eligible staff costs
(e.g. Direct staff (RAs), support staff)
FEC
Research Councils plays 80% of full
costs (plus 100% of exceptions)
Other eligible costs (e.g. equipment)
Research council contribution to indirect
costs = 46% of staff costs
Ineligible costs
(e.g. salary of the Principal
Investigator)
Remaining indirect costs
Grants covered about 55% of full
economic costs
Paid by Research Councils
University pays the remainder
FEC Exceptions: Equipment over
£50k; Project Students
Paid by University
Full Economic Costs - FEC

No costs are “inadmissible”
But………….
 Resources must be justified.
Fund Headings for Research Grants
Justify
Directly
Incurred
Staff
Travel & subsistence
Equipment (under £50k)
Other costs
STAFF: Research,
Technician
Fellows, Visiting
Researchers, Other
Directly
Allocated
Investigators
Other Directly Allocated
costs
Estates Costs
PI and Co-I(s)
Indirect
Costs
Indirect costs
Exceptions
Staff (Project Students)
Equipment (over £50k)
Other costs
Shared Staff costs
Research Facilities /
existing equipment
Other
Justify
Justification of resources
Pre-FEC
› Justification not required:
Indirect costs
FEC
› Justification not required:
Indirect & Estates costs
›
Need/time only
Services
Investigators
›
›
Fully justified
Everything else
›
Need/time only
Shared Staff Costs
DA Investigators (not
salary)
Research Facilities /
existing equipment
 Other Directly Allocated
costs
Fully Justified
Everything else
The Who, What and Why of
Peer Review
The Peer Review Process Involves…
HEI and proposer
Skills and ideas,
research and resources
Responsibility for
managing the process
Prioritisation Panel
Ranked list for funding priority
Referees
Expert opinions
The EPSRC College






Members nominated by those active in EPSRC research
Selection process involves more than 20,000 researchers
Current College active from January 2006 for 4 years
4000+ College members
Academics and non-academics
From July 2003 to June 2004:
16% College members invited to sit on Panels
83% College members invited to referee
New College for 2006 – 2009 now in place.
Ethics and Standards
The Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan)







Integrity
Selflessness
Honesty
Openness
Objectivity
Accountability
Leadership
‘Peer Review’ procedures
Response to Referees
Proposer
Peer Group
College
Proposal
Referees:
One from proposer
Two from college
Associate
Programme
Manager
Supportive?
NO
Not Supported
YES
Review Panel
Chair
Financial Allocations
Council
Rank
Order
Programme Manager
Unfunded
Funded
The Referees
Selection of Referees
Referees selected include a minimum of:
 One of three referees nominated by
applicant (think about who you nominate)
 Two College referees
May also include:
 Other independent referees
 International referees
 Continuity for resubmissions
Role of the Referee
Referees are crucial to the assessment process.
If you are asked to referee a proposal, please provide:
 your comments ….
…. Which should be:

detailed

consistent with box markings on the
proforma

constructive
“Do unto others………..”
Role of the Referee
Referees are reminded that:
 “Blue skies” research is perfectly
acceptable
 Interdisciplinary research
needs a broad view
 Involvement of industrial collaborators &
financial contributions should be at an
appropriate level
The Panel
Meeting Objectives
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’ response to referees
 technical assessments from facilities (if relevant).
Role of The Panel
Typically Consists of 8-12 members, drawn primarily from
the EPSRC College.
Panel Members do not……
 Re-referee proposals
 Change the project
 Reduce the costs
Role of the Panel
Panels do………….
Act as a ‘jury’, weighing the evidence in
front of them:
 The proposal
 The referees’ comments
 The response made by the proposer
Assessment Criteria
Primary criteria = overall quality of proposals
Other factors that may be taken into account:

The level of adventure in research

Whether the research is multidisciplinary

Involvement of new/young academics

The presence of UK & international collaboration
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 the “expert”
(closer to the research area concerned)
This guy is a
genius
Funding Categories
FUND
Recommended by the Panel for support without
reservation. This implies a very strong steer to EPSRC to
fund.
FUNDABLE
Should deliver good quality research for the
resources requested. May be recommended with some
minor reservations.
NOT FUNDABLE
Proposals which contain significant flaws and as
presented do not merit funding, even if sufficient funds are
available.
Decision Actions
Panel agree
priority order
Referees
thanked and
informed of
decisions
Budget agreed by
Programme Manager
Applicants
informed of
decision (and
feedback if
applicable)by UIM
Six month moratorium on
resubmission of
unfunded proposals
Writing a proposal
Things to
think
about
The Basics…
Why do you want to do this research?
(You need to convince your peers it’s worth doing and why you
are the person to do it)
 Bear in mind the assessment criteria and audiences (use
referee and panel prompts as a guide, see EPSRC website)
 Read all the guidance notes (don’t fall at the first hurdle)
Good Proposals…
Are about excellent research
And……..

Demonstrate the capability of applicants
 Are clear about the ideas & work plan (what will be
done when & how the parts relate)
 Show novelty/added value
 Justify resources!
 Cite all key publications
Consider…
 What would it be like to referee your proposal?
 Ensure peer reviewers will want to read it (are the title
and abstract well written?)
It can be hard to be objective so……..
Ask an experienced colleague to “review”
your proposal
And…….
 Looking at successful proposals may help you with
structure
Feedback, it’s important…..
 Use your 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
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
And finally……..
“There is no grantsmanship that will turn a
bad idea into a good one, but…
There are many ways to disguise a good one.”
William Raub, Past Deputy Director, NIH
Panel Meetings - Process
First Pass – speakers highlight:
 Important issues
identified by the
referees
 Discrepancies
between referees’
comments
 Comments on the
general level of
resources requested
 Propose a score on a
scale 10-1
Research Quality: Ranking
Definition
Outstanding
Good
Adequate
Unsatisfactory
Grade
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Panel Meetings - Process
Second Pass – Panel should:

Review initial ranking
 Fine tune through further discussion
 Ensure that ranking criteria have been
fairly and consistently applied
 Agree quality cut-off
The Mock Panel
Outcomes of Proposals
1. GR/R80889/01
2. GR/S82855/01
3. GR/R81541/01
Dr Geen
Prof. Nicol
Prof. Charlton
4. EP/C006100/1
5. GR/S98726/01
Prof. Keenan
Dr Osborne
6. GR/R85440/01
7. GR/R87970/01
GR/R87994/01
8. GR/T09156/01
9. EP/C002482/1
Prof. O’Hearn
Dr Ockendon
Prof. Lawrence
Dr Fangohr
Dr Reiff-Marganiec
10. EP/C52652X/1
Dr Klumpner
Further Information
Robin Hayden
University Interface
Tel: 01793 444046
Manager
e-mail: robin.hayden@epsrc.ac.uk
www.epsrc.ac.uk
Website