polaris house, north star avenue, swindon, wiltshire, sn2 1et tel (01793) 444000 e-mail:...

44
Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN2 1ET Tel (01793) 444000 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ e-mail: [email protected] Helpline (01793) 444100 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Upload: kenneth-fleming

Post on 26-Dec-2015

225 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN2 1ET Tel (01793) 444000http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ e-mail: [email protected] Helpline (01793) 444100

Engineering and Physical SciencesResearch Council

Robin Hayden

University Interface Manager: Durham, Newcastle, Northumbria, Sunderland, Teesside

Schemes:EPSRC Je-S System Representative

Peer Review:Panel Convenor (Engineering)

Overview of Process

Running Panels

Decision Actions

Service Standards

ResearchResponsive Mode and Calls for ProposalsFirst Grant Scheme, Platform Grants…

CollaborationCollaborative Training Accounts (CTAs)Collaborative Research Grants

PeoplePostgraduate TrainingFellowshipsNetworksPublic Understanding

Opportunities for EPSRC funding

EPSRC Expenditure 2004/5

Source: EPSRC Annual Report 2004-2005

CCLRC and other non-ticketed domestic facilities 1%

Administration andrestructuring 4%

Postgraduate training andFellowship awards 27%

Research Grants 68%

£510 Million

Grants£347M

Research Proposals

What are they?

What can I apply for?

A flexible source of funding.

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…

Annexes can include Letters of support Equipment quotes 2 page CVs for Visiting Researchers & named staff posts

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)

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

Ineligible costs(e.g. salary of the Principal Investigator)

Other eligible costs (e.g. equipment)

Remaining indirect costs

Research council contribution to indirect costs = 46% of staff costs

Eligible staff costs(e.g. Direct staff (RAs), support staff)

FECPre-FEC

Paid by Research Councils Paid by University

Research Councils plays 80% of full costs (plus 100% of exceptions)

University pays the remainder

Grants covered about 55% of full economic costs

FEC Exceptions: Equipment over £50k; Project Students

Full Economic Costs - FEC

No costs are “inadmissible”

But………….

Resources must be justified.

Fund Headings for Research Grants

Staff (Project Students)Equipment (over £50k)

Other costsExceptions

Indirect costsIndirect

Costs

PI and Co-I(s)Investigators

Other Directly Allocated costs

Estates Costs

Directly Allocated

STAFF: Research, Technician

Fellows, Visiting Researchers, Other

Staff

Travel & subsistenceEquipment (under £50k)

Other costs

Directly

Incurred

Shared Staff costs

Research Facilities / existing equipment

Other

Justify

Justify

Justification of resources

Pre-FEC

› Justification not required:Indirect costs

› Need/time onlyServicesInvestigators

› Fully justifiedEverything else

FEC

› Justification not required:Indirect & Estates costs

› Need/time onlyShared Staff CostsDA Investigators (not salary)Research Facilities / existing equipment Other Directly Allocated costs

› Fully JustifiedEverything else

The Who, What and Why of The Who, What and Why of Peer ReviewPeer Review

The Peer Review Process Involves…The Peer Review Process Involves…

HEI and proposerSkills and ideas,research and resources

Responsibility for managing the process

RefereesExpert opinions

Prioritisation Panel Ranked list for funding priority

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.

Integrity

Selflessness

Honesty

Openness

Objectivity

Accountability

Leadership

Ethics and Standards

The Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan)

‘Peer Review’ procedures

Referees:One from proposerTwo from college

Chair

Programme Manager

Review Panel

College

Unfunded

Proposer

Proposal

Associate Programme

Manager

Not Supported NO YES

Funded

Rank Order

Financial Allocations

Council

Peer GroupResponse to Referees

Supportive?

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

“Blue skies” research is perfectly acceptable

Interdisciplinary research needs a broad view

Involvement of industrial collaborators & financial contributions should be at an appropriate level

Referees are reminded that:

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

Act as a ‘jury’, weighing the evidence in front of them:

The proposal

The referees’ comments

The response made by the proposer

Panels do………….

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

Budget agreed by Programme Manager

Applicants informed of

decision (and feedback if

applicable)by UIM

Referees thanked and informed of decisions

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

“There is no grantsmanship that will turn a bad idea into a good one, but…

There are many ways to disguise a good one.”

And finally……..

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

Outstanding

Good

Unsatisfactory

Definition Grade

10987654321

Adequate

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

Panel Meetings - Process

The Mock PanelThe Mock Panel

1. GR/R80889/01 Dr Geen

2. GR/S82855/01 Prof. Nicol

3. GR/R81541/01 Prof. Charlton

4. EP/C006100/1 Prof. Keenan

5. GR/S98726/01 Dr Osborne

6. GR/R85440/01 Prof. O’Hearn

7. GR/R87970/01 Dr Ockendon GR/R87994/01 Prof. Lawrence

8. GR/T09156/01 Dr Fangohr

9. EP/C002482/1 Dr Reiff-Marganiec

10. EP/C52652X/1 Dr Klumpner

Outcomes of Proposals

Further Information

Robin HaydenTel: 01793 444046

e-mail: [email protected]

University Interface Manager

Website

www.epsrc.ac.uk