Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Discovery Projects - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2009
11Selection and approval process
Start here
Get a plain-English read of 11
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Discovery Projects - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2009.
11.1.1 All DP Proposals which meet the eligibility criteria will be assessed and merit ranked using the following selection criteria:
a. Investigator(s) (40%)
i. track record relative to opportunities
ii. capacity to undertake the proposed research
b. Proposed project content (60%) made up of
i. Significance and innovation (30%)
does the research address an important problem?
how will the anticipated outcomes advance the knowledge base of the discipline?
is the research principally focussed upon a topic or outcome that falls within one of the National Research Priorities and associated Priority Goals, and if so how does it address the National Research Priority?
are the Proposal’s aims and concepts novel and innovative?
will new methods or technologies be developed?
ii. Approach (20%)
are the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed, well integrated and appropriate to the aims of the Proposal?
how appropriate is the proposed budget?
iii. National benefit (10%)
what is the potential of the research project to result in economic, environmental and/or social benefits for Australia from the expected results and outcomes of the project?
what is the potential for the research to contribute to the National Research Priorities?
11.1.2 Fellowships
11.1.2.1 There are limited numbers of Fellowships available for funding. The recommending of Fellowships is at the ARC’s discretion, having regard to the excellence of the Fellowship candidate’s track record and the excellence of the research project according to the criteria in subsection 11.1.1 and the matters at subsections 8.5.5.8 – 8.5.5.10 and 8.5.6.9 – 8.5.6.11. In addition, for APDs, ARFs and QEIIs only, preference may be given to Fellowship candidates who intend to move to an organisation other than the one where their PhD was obtained and/or who have had research experience at more than one organisation. Proposals should include a justification for the choice of proposed Host Organisation, particularly if no change of organisation is planned.
11.1.3 ECR-Only Proposals
11.1.3.1 The ARC has identified funds within DP specifically for funding ECR-Only Proposals. These identified funds may be used to support ECR-Only Proposals which the ARC considers are of sufficient quality to be recommended for approval.
Section 11 - Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Discovery Projects - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2009 - Selection and approval process | Zoe
11.2 Assessment and selection procedure
11.2.1 Assessment and selection process
11.2.1.1 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:
a. consider if a Proposal satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in these Funding Rules;
b. identify and consider any other matters that these Funding Rules state may result in the ARC’s not recommending a Proposal for approval;
c. assign assessors to review Proposals;
d. seek comments on assessors’ reports from the parties involved in the Proposal;
e. rank each Proposal relative to the others on the basis of the Proposal, any assessors’ reports, and any response to those assessment reports;
f. assess and recommend the amount of funding to be made available for a Proposal; and/or
g. prepare funding recommendations.
11.2.1.2 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.
11.2.2 Exclusion of Proposals
11.2.2.1 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:
a. if the ARC considers that the Proposal seeks funding for any of the items not permitted under Sections 6.4 or 6.5 and the ARC considers no other part of the proposed project remains worthy of support (subsection 6.5.2);
b. if the Proposal seeks salary funding for a CI or PI (subsection 6.4.2.b) or seeks salary support for a Fellowship candidate under an option which is not available for that candidate (subsections 8.5.5.7 and 8.5.6.8).
c. if the Proposal was not submitted by an Eligible Organisation (Section 7.1);
d. if the Proposal did not nominate at least one CI, APD, ARF/QEII or APF candidate (subsection 8.1.3);
e. if the ARC considers that a researcher nominated in the Proposal as CI, PI or ARC Fellow does not meet the eligibility criteria as specified in Section 8.1 or Sections 8.3, 8.4 or 8.5 for the role which that researcher is to perform (subsection 8.1.8);
f. if the ARC determines that a proposed project would fall within the area of Medical and Dental Research (subsection 6.5.1.a and Section 9.4);
g. if a Proposal has not been submitted through the appropriate Research Office/Chief Executive Officer for certification (subsection 10.3.2); and
h. if the Proposal is not for a program of research, or a program that supports the conduct of a program of research.
11.2.2.2 The ARC may in its absolute discretion decide not to recommend for approval a Proposal if:
a. in the opinion of the ARC, any researcher nominated in the Proposal as a CI, PI or ARC Fellow 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 4.1.5);
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 4.4.3.2);
c. if the Proposal has sought funding which is less than the minimum amount or more than the maximum amount of funding allowed (subsection 6.1.2);
d. the limits on the number of Proposals and projects permissible are exceeded (subsection 6.6.1.1);
e. 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 6.6.2.1);
f. the ARC considers that the Proposal is for essentially the same project as an eligible Proposal submitted in the DP funding round conducted in 2008 and that latter Proposal was ranked in group E (remainder of unsuccessful proposals) in that earlier round (subsection 6.6.2.2);
g. where required the Proposal does not include a required letter from a Centre Director (subsections 8.5.3.1 and 9.3.1.2);
h. 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 4.4.2.2, 9.1.1 and 9.3.1.1);
i. where required the Proposal does not include details of other funding or funding requests (subsection 9.2.1);
j. 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, PI or ARC Fellow 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 9.2.1, 9.3.1.4 and 14.5.2 and 14.5.3);
k. when requested, the Administering Organisation fails to provide the signed certifications and agreements of all parties necessary to allow the proposed project to proceed (Section 10.3);
l. the on-line part of a Proposal is not submitted, or the paper part of the Proposal is not received by the ARC, by the closing time (subsection 10.4.5);
m. 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 10.1); or
n. the Proposal fails to meet any format and other submission requirements (Section 10.4).
11.2.3 Assessment
11.2.3.1 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.
11.2.3.2 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.
11.2.3.3 Administering Organisations may provide written notification to the ARC naming any person or persons whom they do not wish 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 (AEDT), Friday 7 March 2008, and be sent:
by courier to:
or, by mail to:
11.2.3.4 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.
11.2.4 Rejoinder
11.2.4.1 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 up to 2 weeks is given to submit a rejoinder to the ARC. Subject to subsection 11.2.4.2, 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.
11.2.4.2 The ARC may, in its absolute discretion, and only in exceptional circumstances, accept late rejoinders.
11.2.5 Recommendations
11.2.5.1 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.
11.2.5.2 Under the ARC Act, the Minister must not approve for funding any Proposal that fails to meet the eligibility criteria set out in these Funding Rules.
11.3 Offer of funding
11.3.1 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.