Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Linkage Projects - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2007
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 - Linkage Projects - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2007.
8.1.1 All Linkage Projects Proposals which meet the eligibility criteria will be assessed and merit ranked using the following criteria:
Investigator(s)
Track record (20%)
- Track record relative to opportunities and/or suitability to supervise postgraduate students (as appropriate)
- Capacity to undertake the proposed research
Proposed project content
Significance and innovation (25%)
- 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 Priorities and Priority Goals?
- are the project aims and concepts novel and innovative?
- will new methods or technologies be developed?
Approach and Training (20%)
- are the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed, well integrated and appropriate to the aims of the project?
- if the project involves an APAI, is the project suitable for research training?
- where relevant, is the intellectual content and scale of the work proposed appropriate to a research higher degree?
- how appropriate is the proposed budget?
National benefit (10%)
- what is the potential of the research project to result in economic 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 National Research Priorities?
Commitment from Partner Organisation(s) (25%)
- is there evidence that each of the Partner Organisations is genuinely committed to, and prepared to collaborate in, the research project?
8.1.2 APDI(s)
8.1.2.1 Assessment of fellowship requests is based on the excellence of the candidate’s track record relative to opportunity as well as the excellence of the proposed project. A Proposal containing a Fellowship request must provide details of the contribution of the proposed Fellow to the project and the research environment of her/his proposed host organisation.
8.1.3 Projects that are of benefit to a rural or regional community
8.1.3.1 Subject to the ARC receiving in a funding round an adequate number of requests of the requisite type and of sufficient quality, the ARC will allocate at least 20 per cent of available Linkage Projects funding to support collaborative research projects addressing on issues of benefit to rural or regional communities. Linkage Projects Proposals will be considered with regard to the nature of the research and to evidence of collaboration between the researcher(s) and the community. This could, for example, take any of the following forms:
the Partner Organisation is located, and/or operating, in a rural or regional community;
a rural or regional community is involved in identifying the problem or issue to be addressed;
a rural or regional community is involved in conducting the research;
there is evidence of an existing relationship between the researchers and the rural or regional community; and/or
researchers with a strong track record in conducting research of benefit to rural or regional communities are involved.
8.1.3.2 Proposals with a demonstrated benefit to a rural or regional community and which are not supported under this funding will still be assessed for funding under the remaining Linkage Projects allocation.
8.1.4 APAI in the fields of information technology and communications
8.1.4.1 In 2007, the ARC will, subject to an adequate number of requests of the requisite type and of sufficient quality being received, allocate at least 50 APAI places in the field of information technology and communications in addition to other APAI funding.
8.1.4.2 Where a Linkage Projects Proposal contains a request for an APAI that is clearly demonstrated as being primarily within the area of information technology and communications, the ARC will initially assess the APAI request for funding within these 50 APAI places. Requests for APAIs not supported under these 50 places will still be assessed for funding against all other Linkage Projects Proposals.
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 decisions and recommendations solely on the basis of its expertise, and which may:
a. determine if a Proposal satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in these Funding Rules;
b. identify and determine 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 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 members, 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 Proposal was not submitted by an Eligible Organisation (Section 4.1);
if the Proposal does not meet the requirements for involvement by or contributions from Partner Organisations (Section 4.2 and Appendix 2);
if the Proposal does not nominate at least one researcher as a CI or APDI Fellow (subsection 5.1.2);
if the ARC considers that a researcher nominated in the Proposal as CI, PI or APDI Fellow does not meet the eligibility criteria as specified in Section 5.1 or Sections 5.3, 5.4 or 5.5 for the role which that researcher is to perform (subsection 5.1.6), subject to Section 5.6;
if the ARC determines that a proposed project would fall within the area of clinical medical and dental research and training (Section 6.4); and/or
if a Proposal has not been submitted through the appropriate Research Office/Chief Executive Officer for certification (subsection 7.3.2).
8.2.2.2 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 APDI 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 1.1.5);
b. the limits on the number of Proposals and projects permissible are exceeded (subsection 3.8.1.1);
c. the ARC considers that a Proposal in a funding round is for essentially the same project as a Proposal submitted in the previous Linkage Projects round (subsection 3.8.2.3);
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 3.8.2.2);
e. the ARC considers that separate Proposals are submitted in the same funding round seeking project funding for separate components for essentially the same project (subsection 3.8.2.1);
f. where required the Proposal does not include a letter from a Centre Director; (subsection 6.3.1.2);
g. in the opinion of the ARC, a Proposal duplicates or is likely to duplicate research already being funded by the Commonwealth (subsection 6.1.1);
h. where required the Proposal does not include details of other funding or funding requests (subsection 6.2.1);
i. the ARC considers inaccurate, false, 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 APDI Fellow have provided the ARC with incomplete, false or misleading information in relation to the reporting of progress of a funded project (subsections 6.2.1, 6.3.1.3 and 11.5.2);
j. the Proposal is submitted after the closing time for the relevant round (subsection 7.4.5);
k. the circumstances of a Proposal are such that an eligibility exemption or ruling is required but the required process has not been followed or the deadlines are not met (subsection 7.1.4); and/or
l. the Proposal fails to meet any format and other submission requirements (Section 7.4).
8.2.3 Assessment
8.2.3.1 The ARC may assess Proposals in different ways depending on the level and nature of support sought in the Proposal. 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 selection criteria set out in these Funding Rules.
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 name any person or persons whom they do not wish to assess a Proposal. Detailed written justification must be submitted through the Administering Organisation’s Research Office in a separate letter which must not accompany the Proposal. The letter must be received by the ARC by the closing time for submission of Proposals for the relevant round, and be sent to:
Linkage Projects Coordinator
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 at least 7 business days is given to submit a rejoinder to the ARC. 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.
8.2.5 Recommendations
8.2.5.1 The ARC’s recommendations will be submitted in accordance with the ARC Act to the Minister for Education, Science and Training (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 projects.
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 An Administering Organisation which has Proposal(s) approved will be:
a. notified in a letter of offer that will indicate the financial assistance to be offered; and
b. provided with a draft Funding Agreement for signing.
Section 8 - Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Linkage Projects - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2007 - Selection and approval process | Zoe