Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Discovery Indigenous Researchers Development - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2008
8Selection and approval process
Start here
Get a plain-English read of 8
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Discovery Indigenous Researchers Development - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2008.
8.1.1 All Discovery Indigenous Researchers Development Proposals which meet the eligibility criteria will be assessed and merit ranked using the following criteria:
a. Investigators (40%)
track record relative to opportunities.
capacity to undertake the proposed research.
the extent to which the successful completion of the research project will train and equip the researcher to compete for other research funding.
b. Proposed project content (40%)
what is the potential of the research project to result in social, environmental and/or economic benefits for Australia from the expected results and outcomes of the project?
does the research address an important problem?
how will the anticipated outcomes advance the knowledge base of the discipline?
are the Proposal’s aims, approach and concepts novel and innovative?
will new methods or technologies be developed?
are the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed and appropriate to the aims of the Proposal?
how appropriate is the proposed budget?
c. Quality of the research environment and/or Mentor and/or Supervisor (20%)
if applicable, the nature and level of support provided by the Mentor and/or Supervisor.
the nature and level of support provided by the Administering Organisation.
the quality of, and relevance of the proposed project to, the research undertaken at the Administering Organisation.
8.1.2 Fellowships
8.1.2.1 The recommending of IRFs is at the ARC’s discretion, having regard to the excellence of the IRF candidate’s track record and the excellence of the research project and Host Organisation according to the criteria in subsection 8.1.1. Proposals should include details of the IRF candidate’s proposed contribution to the project and justification for the choice of proposed Host Organisation, particularly if no change of organisation is planned.
8.2 Assessment and selection procedure
8.2.1 Assessment and selection process
8.2.1.1 Assessment of Proposals is undertaken by the ARC, which has the right to make recommendations solely on the basis of its expertise, and which may:
consider if a Proposal satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in these Funding Rules;
identify and consider any other matters that these Funding Rules state may result in the ARC’s not recommending a Proposal for approval;
assign assessors to review Proposals;
seek comments on assessors’ reports from the parties involved in the Proposal;
rank each Proposal relative to the others on the basis of the Proposal, any assessors’ reports, and any response to those assessment reports;
assess and recommend the amount of funding to be made available for a Proposal; and/or
prepare funding recommendations for the Minister as required by the ARC Act.
8.2.1.2 The ARC College of Experts assists with the assessment of Proposals. The ARC has procedures for managing organisational and personal conflicts of interest experienced by members of the College of Experts, members of other ARC Committees, ARC staff, and other assessors, and for enabling individuals to withdraw from the assessment process for particular Proposals where any actual or perceived conflict may exist.
8.2.2 Exclusion of Proposals
8.2.2.1 The ARC will not recommend for approval, and the Minister will not approve for funding, any Proposal that fails to satisfy the “eligibility criteria” set out in these Funding Rules, including:
if the ARC considers that the Proposal seeks funding for any of the items not permitted under Sections 3.4 or 3.5 and the ARC considers no other part of the proposed project remains worthy of support (subsection 3.4.2);
if the Proposal was not submitted by an Eligible Organisation (Section 4.1);
if the Proposal did not nominate at least one CI or IRF candidate (subsection 5.1.2);
if the ARC considers that a researcher nominated in the Proposal as a CI or IRF candidate does not meet the eligibility criteria as specified in Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 for the role which that researcher is to perform (Section 5.1.7);
if the ARC determines that a proposed project would fall within the area of Medical and Dental Research (subsection 3.4.1a and Section 6.3);
if a Proposal has not been submitted through the appropriate Research Office/Chief Executive Officer for certification (subsection 7.3.2); and
if the Proposal is not for a program of research, or a program that supports the conduct of a program of research.
8.2.2.2 The ARC may in its absolute discretion decide to not recommend for approval a Proposal if:
a. in the opinion of the ARC, any researcher nominated in the Proposal as a CI, Mentor, Supervisor or IRF has caused or has significantly contributed to the failure of an organisation to meet its obligations under any current or previous funding agreement with the ARC (subsection 1.1.5);
b. in the opinion of the ARC, any party involved in or associated with the Proposal has failed to disclose any conflict of interest which has the potential to influence, or appear to influence, the research and activities, publications and media reports, or requests for funding related to the Proposal (subsection 1.4.3.2);
c. the limits on the number of Proposals and projects permissible are exceeded (subsection 3.6.1.1);
d. the ARC considers that the project described in the Proposal is the same as or similar (in whole or in part) to a project described in another Proposal that is submitted in the same funding round (subsection 3.6.2.1);
e. the Proposal nominates a researcher for an IRF and seeks only salary and salary-related on-costs for the IRF but does not confirm that the IRF candidate will have her/his research costs funded on the proposed project (subsection 5.3.2.4);
f. in the opinion of the ARC, a Proposal duplicates or is likely to duplicate research already being funded, or which is likely to be funded, by the Commonwealth (subsections 1.4.2.2 and 6.1.1);
g. where required the Proposal does not include details of other funding or funding requests (subsection 6.2);
h. the ARC considers incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading material has been provided in relation to the Proposal or if the Administering Organisation and/or researchers nominated in the Proposal as a CI, Fellow, Mentor or Supervisor have provided the ARC with incomplete, unsatisfactory, inaccurate or misleading information in relation to the provision of advice relating to, or in the reporting of progress of, a funded project (subsections 6.2.1, 11.5.2 and 11.5.3);
i. the on-line Proposal is submitted, or the paper version of the Proposal is received by the ARC, after the closing time (subsection 7.4.5.1);
j. the circumstances of a Proposal are such that an eligibility exemption or ruling is required but the required process has not been followed (including that the deadlines are not met) (Section 7.1); or
k. the Proposal fails to meet any format and other submission requirements (Section 7.4).
8.2.3 Assessment
8.2.3.1 In addition to assessment by the ARC, a Proposal may at the ARC’s absolute discretion be assessed by external assessors. Assessors may be drawn from a range of organisations to reduce the potential for conflicts of interest. Proposals will be assessed against the criteria set out in these Funding Rules and the reports by the assessors may include written comment.
8.2.3.2 The ARC reserves the right to make recommendations for funding to the Minister based on any number of assessments or solely on the assessment of the ARC.
8.2.3.3 Administering Organisations may provide written notification to the ARC naming any person or persons whom they wish not to assess a Proposal. A “Request not to Assess” form is available from the ARC’s Web Site for this purpose. Such notifications must contain detailed justification and be submitted using the “Request not to Assess” form through the Administering Organisation’s Research Office. This notification must not accompany the Proposal. The notification must be received by the ARC by the closing time for Proposals, 5:00 pm (AEST), Friday 4 May 2007, and be sent:
by mail to:
Discovery Indigenous Researchers Development Coordinator
GPO Box 2702
CANBERRA ACT 2601
or by courier to:
Discovery Indigenous Researchers Development Coordinator
1st Floor, 8 Brindabella Circuit
CANBERRA AIRPORT ACT 2609
8.2.3.4 The ARC will consider the justification put forward to exclude any person as an assessor, but may choose not to give effect to such a request.
8.2.4 Rejoinder
8.2.4.1 Assessors’ written comments, if obtained, may be provided to allow the opportunity for a rejoinder to the comments. Names of assessors are not provided. At the same time, the ARC may add questions to the material sent for rejoinder. A period of 2 weeks is given to submit a rejoinder to the ARC. Subject to subsection 8.2.4.2, rejoinders will not be accepted after the nominated closing time for rejoinder submissions. The ARC may limit the length of rejoinders which can be submitted. Rejoinders must be submitted through the ARC’s on-line grants application management system.
8.2.4.2 The ARC may, in its absolute discretion, and only in exceptional circumstances, accept late rejoinders.
8.2.5 Recommendations
8.2.5.1 The ARC’s recommendations will be submitted in accordance with the ARC Act to the Minister for consideration. The Minister determines which Proposals will be approved and the amount and timing of financial assistance to be paid to Administering Organisations for approved Proposals.
8.2.5.2 Under the ARC Act, the Minister may not approve for funding any Proposal that fails to meet the eligibility criteria set out in these Funding Rules.
8.3 Offer of funding
8.3.1 Administering Organisations whose Proposals are approved will be:
a. notified in a letter of offer that will indicate the financial assistance to be offered; and
b. provided with a copy of a Funding Agreement for signing.
Section 8 - Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Discovery Indigenous Researchers Development - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2008 - Selection and approval process | Zoe