project thesis class 4, 27/11/2006 class 4 27.11.2006 proposal writing & the refereeing process

Project Thesis Class 4, 27/11/2006

Class 4

27.11.2006

Proposal Writing & The Refereeing

Process


The Refereeing Process


Contents

IntroductionPeer review process

Journals Conferences Research programmes The tasks of a referee Reviewing a research paper Preparing the referee report & recommendations Evaluating a research proposal

Acting as an editor or program chairperson How to become a referee?Final words


Disclaimer

There is no fixed mechanism for refereeing

There are simple rules that help transforming a review in a constructive document

In time you will develop your own style of refereeing


Introduction

A scientific paper is expected to provide a sufficient contribution to the knowledge base of its field

• Number of scientific papers and articles (2000): > 600 000 (ISI)• About 50% in the fields of science and technology

The number of papers and articles submitted for publication is much larger• refereeing process selects the ones to be published

Examples of acceptance rates after refereeing:• Journals: ~10-20% (large variance)• Conferences: ~10-50%• Workshops: ~30%-90%

Refereeing is also used in selecting research projects to be funded


Introduction

What is a sufficient contribution? • new result, theoretical or experimental• new insight• novel synthesis of ideas• useful survey• useful tutorial

What is not a sufficient contribution• badly written• erroneous data

MPI = Minimum Publishable Increment depends on the forum


Peer review process

Peer reviews are carried out by anonymous referees who evaluate the sufficiency of contribution

• novelty, significance, correctness, readability

Refereeing is public service to the scientific community• professional obligation, • carried out on volunteer basis• requires high expertise• helps in improving one’s own expertise• ensures the integrity of science


Peer review process of a journal

editor

associateeditors

author

referees

acceptrejectrevise

submission

reviewsrecommendations

selection of refereeschecking of revised papers

publish

selection of associate editor


Peer review process of a conference

program chairprogram

committeeauthor

referees

accept/reject/accept with revisions

submission

accept/reject/minor revision recommendations

• selection of the referees• checking of revisions

extra referees


Peer review process of a workshop

program chairprogram

committeeauthor

extra referees

accept/reject

submit

refereeingchecking ofrevisions


Peer review process of a research programme

steeringcommittee

proposer

referees

accept with partial funding/reject

submission

Notice: not representative of all research programmes


The tasks of a referee

The reviewer grades a paper based on its novelty, significance,correctness, and readability

In case of substantial conflicts of interest or if the paper is out of the field of the reviewer, the editor must be informed promptly

Both positive and negative findings are summarized in a referee report

Confidential part only for the editor/program committee: Information that could reveal the identity of the reviewer or in minor conflicts of interest

non-confidential part for the author/program committee

Learn from the other reviews, if they are sent to you after the process


Why do it?

Several reasons Enhance reputation (with editor/prog. committee) Expedites processing of your own papers Get on editorial board or program committee Good practice

Increase your own critical appraisal ability

Your papers become better Sometimes it gets preferential treatment for your papers

… but refereeing means more work!


Consideration

Most reviews have strict deadlines

By agreeing to review you take the responsibility of doing a thorough job

If you cannot commit to this, notify the editor asap

Editors understand you may not have the time, but are unforgiving if you commit and do a poor job

Good editors keep a list …


The right attitude: I can learn something!

Humbleness and an open mind needed; 100% self-confidence can be harmful

Early assumptions on the correctness of the paper or the sufficiency of its references should be avoided

• an elegantly written paper may have zero actual contribution

• a paper with broken English may contain a major new idea

The papers recommended for acceptance should have novelty and be correct

• If the reviewer can’t check a fact or is unsure, this should be stated in the review report

But don’t waste your time on analysing in detail a paper that is never publishable

• a single crucial error is enough


Reviewing a research paper

The paper to be reviewed is typically accompanied with a review form

• fill the five point scale questions last• it is most important to write an itemized review report

Relevance

[ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ x ] good [ ] excellent Originality

[ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ x ] good [ ] excellent Background knowledge of the subject and references

[ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ x ] good [ ] excellent Technical content

[ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ x ] good [ ] excellent Presentation

[ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ x ] good [ ] excellent


Reviewing a research paper: analysis

The analysis of a paper can be done by generating explanations to the following eight points (Smith 1990)

1. What is the purpose of the paper?

2. Is the problem clearly stated and have the key issues been pointed out?

3. Is it clear what has been accomplished?

4. Is the paper appropriate for the intended forum?

5. If it is not, what could be a better choice?

6. Is the goal significant = has the work been worth doing?

7. Are the results just trivial variations or extensions of previous results?

8. Are there any new ideas, or novelties in research methodology?

Citation analysis using electronic libraries are a big help!


Reviewing a research paper: analysis (cont’d)

Is the method of approach clear and valid?• Is there something fundamentally flawed in the

approach? • Are the assumptions realistic and does that

matter?• Is the method new? Can it be generalized to

other problems?

Is the actual execution of the research correct?• Are the mathematics and statistics correct?

Check!• Have the simulations been described in

sufficient detail for replication?• What about the boundary conditions?• Do the results make sense?

This part may require considerable effort from the reviewer...


Reviewing a research paper: analysis (cont’d)

Are the conclusions correct?What are the applications or implications of the

results and are the results analysed to an adequate depth?

Is the presentation satisfactory?Is the paper readable? Is it structured according to

the conventions of scientific publications?

What did you as the reviewer learn?If you didn’t learn anything, then the paper is not

publishable (provided that you understood the paper)


Reviewing a research paper: analyzing the references

It is researcher’s professional obligation to cite prior work

• the manuscript being reviewed includes claims of novelties; regularly citing prior research

• the reviewer needs to check the validity of the claims• most efficient to carry out the analysis using electronic

libraries

At minimum:• Check what is found using the key words of the article • Study the references you don’t know beforehand• Check which recent papers cite the same references• Check the references of those recent papers


Review structure

The actual refereeing form

General comments on the paper

Specific comments on the paper

Confidential note to editor

General idea: be professional and non-hostile: write the review in a style that you would like to receive for your paper


The refereeing form

Forms might look quite different but basically ask the same things

Poorly designed ones just have yes/no answers, good ones prompt the referee to elaborate

Make sure you read and understand it well


Writing the referee report

No fixed rules exist, the following ones are according to (Smith 1990)

Most important: make your opinions clear; avoid ”perhaps” and ”maybe”; evaluate the paper, not the author; itemize the contributions

State the recommendation and its justification; the five point scale part of the evaluation form is not enough Show with a few summarizing sentences that you have understood the paper. The editor may use this part and compare your summary to those of the other reviewers Evaluate the significance and validity of the research goal Evaluate the quality of methodology, techniques, accuracy and presentation; recommendations for revisions can be written here Make a clear recommendation for or against publication with justifications


Compiling the recommendations

Classification of papers (Smith 1990)

1. Very significant; includes major results (<1% of all papers)

2. Interesting work, a good contribution (<10%)

3. Minor positive contribution (10-30%)

4. Elegant and technically correct, but useless

5. Neither elegant nor useful, but not wrong

6. Wrong and misleading

7. Unreadable, impossible to evaluate

The acceptance level of the journals and conferences vary; 1,2, and perhaps 3(-4)


Outcome

Usually: Accept the paper as it is Paper requires minor changes Paper requires major changes (with or without a new refereeing

process) Reject publication of the paper

You can only suggest, the choice is not yours Decision is based on at least 3 reviews


Research proposals

A research proposal is a request for funding submitted to,

• MCyT, MECD, GENCAT

• European Commission

• NIH, NASA, NSF, ESF

• other funding organization such as a foundation

The key difference to reviewing research papers is that

the reviewers also evaluate the proposers

Not all organizations use peer review as a means for selecting proposals for funding


Evaluating research proposals

The evaluation criteria vary between funding organizations

Key criteria:

1. Is the research topic significant?

2. Are the goals realistic?

3. Has the proposer sufficient expertice and facilities to reach the goals?

4. Is the requested funding reasonable?


Ethics of refereeing

Objectivity Judge paper on its own merits Remove prejudice If you are not able to review it, return it

Fairness Author may have different point of view / methodology / arguments Judge from their school of thought not yours

Speed Be fast, but do not rush. Author deserves a fair hearing



Professional treatment Act in the best interest of the author and conference/journal Specific rather than vague criticism

Confidentiality Cannot circulate paper Cannot use without permission

Conflict of interest Discuss with editor



Honesty About your expertise and confidence in appraisal

Courtesy Constructive criticism Non-inflammatory language Suggest improvements


Acting as an editor or program chairperson

The editor • maintains correspondence with authors and referees• finds new referees if the ones assigned fail to act in given time• decides on acceptance, rejection or a revision round based on

2-4 review statements. • should distribute all review statements to the referees• receives occasional negative feedback

Review is not a vote! The editor is likely to line himself according to

the best justified recommendations

Conference program committees often rely on the numerical

evaluations, occasionally resorting to vote


How to become a referee

• Writing a publication that is cited is the most certain way to become a referee

• Coordination or technical coordination of an EU RTD project is a direct road to proposal evaluations

• Refereeing is very rewarding, helps to keep up-to-date and aware of developments in fields adjacent to ones own specialty


Final words

Good referee reports are valuable and free of charge

• help in improving the paper• help in improving as a researcher• help in improving as a referee

Refereeing is a learning experience

Scientific progress rests heavily on peer reviews


PROJECT THESIS EDITOR OFFICE

Using the articles prepared, we will set up an editorial office

Each student will act as an associate editor of one article and will review three articles

Each student will peer review his/her three allocated articles and will return the referee report to the assigned associate editorThe associate editor will compile the final report and will return the final report with the individual referee reports to the Editorial Office


Proposal Writing


Proposal Writing

In order to carry out research, in general financing is required.

There are several national and international sources of funding and the process for obtaining funding is realised through proposal submission and review.

The aim of this section is to INFORM you of the proposal process, proposal formats and existing funding bodies.

The homework of this class will be to draft a proposal of your PhD to assist you in your resaerch planning, but NOT with a view to preparing a formal proposal in the style of those submitted for financing!


Content

Why research ?Why should this be in a competitive context ?Why a research proposal ?Getting startedWhat makes a good proposal ?Writing your proposalHow to structure your proposal ?The review processAllocation of fundingWhat next ?Getting help with your proposal ?Quick TIPS for writing a good proposal


Why research ?

Why is the development of research within universities a must ?

To maintain the quality of teaching programs.Provide the basis for undergraduate and graduate

thesis research projects.Universities should be more than degree delivering

institutions.Universities should be the basket for new

knowledge and developments.


Why should this be in a competitive context ?

Do universities have the financial capacity to develop and support research activities ?

Where can the money be found to develop and support research ?

How can society get the highest return on investment ?


Why a research proposal ?

Convince others the project you have designed is important, worth the effort.

Convince others that you have the ability to carry out the research design and report the findings.

Generate funds to sustain the research units operation.


Getting started

Know your subject. The reviewers will look for an up-to-date knowledge of the research area.

Know your funder. Be aware of the priorities and interests of the funder you approach, and know that funders are unlikely to support the same idea twice.


Getting started

Consult colleagues.

Don’t be afraid to discuss your proposal with colleagues, or even with the grants officer at the funding body.

Early discussions can ensure that your proposal is targeted appropriately.


What makes a good proposal ?

A well-prepared application should require minimal effort on the part of the reviewer.

Proposals must demonstrate high scientific quality.

The requested funds must be in proportion to the proposed project (cost-effectiveness).


Writing your proposal

Allow plenty of time to prepare your proposal. A good starting point is to write a one-page summary of the whole project. This may take a while to get right, but once completed it will serve as an invaluable tool for writing your full proposal.

Use your proposal to show the need and then fill the gap.



Present your proposal in terms of the aims and objectives of the funder and not just your own – make it clear how you will be helping them to fund their priorities.

Consider the questions the funder will be asking: Why fund you ? Why fund this ? Why now ? ... and make sure that the proposal answers them!



Be aware that you will have limited to none opportunities to answer queries arising from a reading of your proposal.

Consult the funders website and read clearly the call for research proposals as well as the criteria against which your proposal will be judged.



Although it is the content that matters, good presentation is often crucial to making your proposal accessible to reviewers and keeping their interest.

Use diagrams and tables to add clarity;Bullet points and sections can break up text;Keep to page, word and font size restrictions; andActivate the spell checker while writing.


How to structure your proposal ?

Check guidelines carefully – failing to meet the funder’s format and specifications is one of the most common reasons for applications being returned.

A common proposal structure normally consists of: title, abstract, background, aims and objectives, methodology, work program, resources, outcomes (outputs & dissemination), project management, reviewers.



Title: This is the first impression the reader gets.

The title should be short and clear, and the reviewer should be able to understand from the title the intentions of the research.

A catchy title posing a question or including an apparant contradiction or acronym may be more easily remembered by a reviewer.



Abstract: Should be a concise summary of the WHOLE project.

Use the abstract to identify the need for this research, state what you intend to do, and how you intend to do it.

Do not include unnecessary detail; make each phrase count.

And remember it is the first impression a reviewer gets of an applicant’s worth!



Background: This section should be used to put the work into context: what has been done before, and how will the proposed work add to it ?

What is the innovative aspect in the research project ?

Build your case by demonstrating your capability and familiarity in the area.



Aims and objectives: The aims should describe what you intend to achieve by doing this piece of work.

Your objectives are the small steps you need to reach in order to achieve your aim.

Aims and objectives should be realistic, consistent, and link them to methods, timetable, and outcomes.



Methodology: Methods should be detailed and well thought through.

Explain why you have chosen a particular method.

Base your explanation on literature references.

If your own experience of a methodology is limited, consider working with collaborators.



Work program: Make use of a Pert chart to illustrate the building blocks – work packages – of the research project. Be detailed in the description of the content of each work package (why, objectives, method(s), duration, when are you going to carry out each WP, partners involved in the realization, sequence of WP, etc.).


WP 1

WP 3

WP 2

WATERSHED LEVEL

Determination topography of reservoir

Determination of sediment load

Determination of rainfall and runoff

Determination of sediment load

Life expectancy reservoir

INPUT for decision making

Modeling process

Gross water availability

Topography

Land use

Soil

Climate

IRRIGATION SCHEME LEVEL

Management system (CERES)

Water rights

WP 5

WP 4

Predicting the values of the irrigation and

economic indicators for alternative scenarios of

water management

Irrigation indicators

Irrigation infrastructure

Conveyance efficiency

WP 6

Calibration and validation of the methodology for the actual water management

situation

WP 7Economic indicators

WP 8Simplified management

system

Water demand estimation

Example of a Pert chart



Work program: This section contains also a diagrammatic work plan, called a Gannt chart.

The Gannt chart or diagrammatic work plan should also be accompanied by a written description.


Example of a Gannt chart (= diagrammatic work plan)

deliverables



Resources: The proposal should contain a detailed budget.

The budget asked should be in proportion to the volume and complexity of the work activities.

Be aware that funders vary as to what they are prepared to pay in terms of direct project costs, such as staff and equipment, and indirect costs, such as overheads.

The funder might request to approve beforehand own inputs or inputs from other institutions participating in the project.



Outcomes, outputs (+ deliverables) and dissemination: In this section one should describe the contribution to knowledge and importance for future research, the benefits to users, and the broader relevance to beneficiaries.

Highlight how results will be disseminated (publications, conferences, commercial exploitation, websites, ....).



Project management: This might not be required for small projects.

However for projects in which several partners are involved sufficient information has to be provided on how the project will be managed (timescales, milestones, communication, criteria to measure progress, how crisis situations and conflicts will be handled, etc.).


Example of Project Organization chart



Reviewers: Often requested to suggest name of referees.

Choose people who know you and your work;Don’t use reviewers within your own institution;Use international reviewers; andBe aware that applicant’s own referees can write

unfavourable reports.


The review process

Expert assessment: Traditionally applications will be assessed by 2 to 3 reviewers selected from the pool of experts.

Reviewers will make an independent assessment of the scientific quality of the proposal.

To be selected for funding at least 2 of the 3 reviewers should provide a positive assessment.


The review process

What are reviewers looking for ? High scientific quality;Proposals that meet the funder’s priorities or fill a

knowledge gap;Novelty and timeliness;Value for money;A clear and well thought out approach; andAn interesting idea – catch their attention!


The review process

Awards committee: Ranks the submitted proposals on the basis of the reviewer’s reports. Their operation and procedures can be very variable from funder to funder. They might for policy reasons of the funder deviate from the reviewer’s assessment.


Allocation of funding

Position in the ranking is important – it could mean the difference between success and failure. Proposals are often ranked into the following categories:

Fund;Fundable;Invite resubmission (used by some funders); orReject.


What next ?

If the project is retained for funding OK.

If the project is found fundable ???

If invited for resubmission revise proposal feedback from the reviewers panel.

If rejected, can be very frustrating do not give up, try to get feedback remember it is a learning process !


Quick for writing a good proposal

Allow plenty of time;Start by writing a summary of your proposed project;Demonstrate an up-to-date knowledge of your field;Present your proposal in terms of the aims and

objectives of the funder;Avoid jargon – say what you mean in clear, simple

language;Don’t be afraid to state the obvious;Use graphics and diagrams to summarise what you are

trying to communicate


Allow a maximum of 4 charts (PERT, GANNT, PROJECT ORGANIZATION and BUDGET) - but include as many schematic representations of the concepts as possible;

Anticipate questions that may arise, before they arise;Ask a colleague to review your proposal; andBe enthusiastic about your idea – if you don’t sound

interested, why should anyone else be ?

Quick for writing a good proposal


Funding Sources

EUROPE European Comission (www.cordis.lu) - 4 year programmes with identified priorities and objectives. Currently Framework 6 - Framework 7 soon begins this year European Science Foundation (www.esf.org) National Funding (www.medc.es, www.mcyt.es)

US

National Institute of Health (www.nih.gov)

DARPA (www.darpa.mil)

NASA

Department Of Energy

Department Of Agriculture


Homework

Draft a proposal of your PhD project

The proposal should include: Title Page Table of Contents Overall and sub-objectives State-of-the-art and novelty of project Workplan - divide into ‘workpackages’, for each WP describe the tasks and sub-tasks (a couple of paragraphs for each), the resources required, risk analysis and contingency plan, as well as deliverables and milestones Pert Chart Gantt Chart Bibliography (? Budget)

project thesis class 4, 27/11/2006 class 4 27.11.2006 proposal writing & the refereeing process

Documents