ncgp update 16 november presented by dr laura dan chief programme officer

NCGP Update16 November

Presented byDr Laura Dan

Chief Programme Officer

Web: arc.gov.au I Email: [email protected]

• Programme update

• Peer review update– College of Experts– Detailed assessors

• Outcome notification

• Postaward– Funding agreements

• Sector engagement

Overview


NCGP Lifecycle


• Funding rules for 2016 rounds – Standard format– Early release

• Dates for 2016 available

• Reminders for rejoinders

• New Website

• Grants Search

Programme update


ARC Proposal assessment• The ARC peer review process is designed to be fair,

thorough and transparent

• All proposals are assessed against the selection criteria and in accordance with the weightings for that scheme

• Two types of assessors:- two College of Experts members (General assessors)- minimum two Detailed assessors

• ARC staff asses eligibility etc., but do not decide which proposals should be funded


ARC College of Experts

• Expanded College- 170 people (up from 70 in previous years)

• More flexibility in forming panels- Desirable to avoid members business- Capacity to provide late assessments

• 170 Members (76 new and 94 continuing)

• 41 second year, 53 final year

• 36% female (up from 29% in 2015)

• 35 organisations

• 46% from Go8

• Smaller and regional universities well represented

ARC College of Experts 2016


Number of PanelsDiscovery Programme

Laureate Fellowshi

ps

Future Fellowshi

ps

DECRA

Discovery Projects

Linkage Programme

Centres of

Excellence

Co-Funded & SRI

ITRP

Linkage Projects

Discovery Indigenous

LIEF

1 3 4 5


Detailed Assessment numbers—some examples

The ARC is grateful to a large number of extremely hard-working assessors who conduct the peer review process

External assessments Proposals

Average per

proposal 2015

average

DECRA16 4170 1220 3.41 3.3

Discovery Projects 16 11987 3584 3.34 3.3

Linkage Projects 15 2305 710 3.24 3.2


Actual rating distribution—DP15Detailed Assessors A B C D ETarget 10% 15% 20% 35% 20%Feasibility and Benefit 25% 34% 25% 12% 3%Investigator(s) 40% 37% 17% 5% 1%Project Quality and Innovation 25% 32% 25% 14% 4%Research Environment 54% 32% 11% 3% 1%Total 36% 34% 20% 9% 2%

General Assessors A B C D ETarget 10% 15% 20% 35% 20%Feasibility and Benefit 5% 24% 38% 24% 9%Investigator(s) 13% 34% 33% 15% 5%Project Quality and Innovation 7% 25% 37% 23% 8%Research Environment 22% 40% 24% 10% 3%Total 12% 31% 33% 18% 6%


• In addition to institutional conflicts, an assessor may be deemed to have a COI with a named participant on a funding proposal for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, if that assessor:– has a close personal relationship (including enmity) with that named

participant;– has a professional relationship with that named participant including:

o currently holds, or has held within the past two years, funding conjointly with that named participant

o has a current application or is negotiating an application for funding with that named participant

o has been a collaborator or co-author with that named participant on a research output within the past four years

o has been a co-editor with that named participant of a book, journal, compendium, or conference proceedings within the past two years

o has been a postgraduate student or supervisor of that named participant within the past five years

– could otherwise be perceived to benefit materially from the awarding of funding to the proposal involving that named participant.

Conflict of Interest


• RMS takes into account a great deal of data (e.g. institutional), but it doesn’t know everything

• Assessors reviewing ARC proposals who identify a conflict of interest must reject the proposal in RMS

• Assessing proposals despite a conflict of interest is in breach of ARC rules and of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

Conflict of Interest (cont.)


Monitoring assessments

2015 2014 2013

Assessors who assessed while conflicted

35 15 4

Mismatch between score and text

2 14 11

Brief and unhelpful assessments

5 3 7

Inappropriate comments

3 9 14


Accepting funding agreements in RMS• The ARC is transitioning to electronic acceptance of

funding agreements and funding offers. • Instructions on how to accept your funding

agreement and offer in RMS will be sent through to Research Offices in late November.

• Signed copies of the draft Funding Agreement will not be accepted.

Web: arc.gov.au I Email: [email protected]: arc.gov.au I Email: [email protected]

2015 Post-award

• Modernisation of EOY and Progress Reports in RMS

• Increased outreach and communication with the sector

• Consultation/working groups

- RMS

- Industry Collaboration• Streamlining of VFA requests

• Final Report assessments have streamlined and speed up


Post-award—future plans• Post-award accessibility for Research Offices via RMS

• Further improvement for EOY/Progress Reporting, Final Reports and VFA requests

• Improved reporting capabilities

• Auto-population of data collected by ARC will start to be accessible for other areas in RMS


2015 Post-award—Final Reports

• Currently 15 242 Final Reports in the RMS

• 77.8% have already been Approved or waived

• Reports are being assessed more regularly and feedback given when appropriate

• Always on the look out for good news stories

• Final Reports are being reviewed for future improvements, including:

- streamlining

- auto-population of more questions

- being able to use the data in other areas of RMS


2015 VFA requests summaryBreakdown of 2015 requests

• 54%—Change to a Person/Org/participation

• 17%—Budget Variations/conversions/ payments

• 11%—Deferments/Suspensions/Extensions

• 10%—Transfers

• 4%—Relinquishments/Terminations

• 1%—Changes to scope

• 1%—Fellows - Additional Appointment

• 1%—Other


2015 Relinquishments

• There have been 254 relinquishments from 2012 to Oct 2015

• 89 (35%) of these have been prior to commencement


Post-award—IssuesPartner Org relationships—How are they being managed; contributions,

reporting

• Partner Org agreements not being signed in time, contributions not being paid and not reporting to the ARC, resulting in the project being relinquished

Student recruitment—deferrals, visa issues, difficultly in finding suitable candidates

• All of ARC funds being spent before Partner Org funds are spent, resulting in reporting issues and corrects needing to be made

Transfers not reported correctly—unspent funds still being hidden and not reported

• Final Reports being submitted before the Project has been completed and all funds spent

• ARC not being informed of changes until the Final Report is submitted


Types of RO RMS rolesResearch Office StaffCan view and edit Proposals on behalf of applicantsCan update user profiles for accounts administered by their organisationCan submit Eligibility Exemption Requests to the ARCCan submit certified proposals and final reports to the ARCCan edit End of Year ReportsCan run and view any Research Office reports

Research Office DelegateCan certify proposals and final reports


Research Office RMS roles

Total of Research Office roles in RMS

Research Office role

1060 Research Office Staff

261 Research Office Delegate

107 Research Office Financial Administrator

• From the end of November there will be an additional Research Office role called Research Office Signatory

• The role Research Office Financial Administrator will be changed to Research Office EOYR Delegate


Adding or removing RO RMS rolesFor all Research Office roles except Research Office Financial Administrator, the Research Office should email the ARC Helpdesk ([email protected]) providing the following information: title, first name, family name, email address and the Research Office roles to be removed or added.

For the Research Office Financial Administrator role, please email the Post Award Team ([email protected]) providing the following information: title, first name, family name, email address and confirming if the role is to be removed or added.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Getting an extract of Research Roles

• You can get an extract of all the people in RMS with your organisation as the Administering Organisation

• This extract includes what RO roles each person has• To extract this report, log on to RMS and select

‘Research Office Staff Reports’, then select ‘CSV—Client Extract’ and select ‘Download’


Adding an ORCID to a user’s profile• From the end of the month, users will be able to

link an ORCID iD to their RMS User Profile

• The functionality will connect directly to ORCID, and will allow the user to link a current ORCID account or will provide them with the ability to create an ORCID account

• Not be mandatory

• No information from the user’s ORCID account will be utilised in other parts of RMS at this stage


Who can do it?• ORCID iDs must be authenticated by each user

and each user must authorise the ARC to get the user’s ORCID iD

• As such, there will be no ability for Research Office Staff to link an ORCID iD to a user’s account, either individually or through a bulk upload mechanism.


How to add an ORCID iD?


How to create an ORCID iD?


Sector Engagement• Secondments from Research Offices

• Invitations to reciprocate

• Working groups

• Review of communication-Who receives what communication-Roles in RMS-Network list

Thank You

ncgp update 16 november presented by dr laura dan chief programme officer

Documents

named participant

lifecycle web

funding proposal

late assessments web

large number

members businesscapacity

general assessorsabcdetarget10

number of reasons