Date post: | 26-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | kenneth-fleming |
View: | 224 times |
Download: | 3 times |
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
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 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?
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:
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
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
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
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