DATE: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:58:38 +1000 SUBJECT: ARC peer review consultation An interesting message from FASTS: Greetings Yesterday the ARC released a consultation paper on its peer review processes. I know these issues provoke intense debate amongst university researchers so I suspect all member associations/societies will have members with strong views. FASTS will be making a submission and I am sure some of you will also want to. Submissions are due by 19 October, as always I would appreciate your comments/suggestions. To access the paper and the submissions template please go to: http://www.arc.gov.au/general/peer_consultation.htm I have not had an opportunity to read the paper carefully but some key points/proposals are: Retain, with some modifications, a three level assessment (currently international readers, Australian assessors and College of Experts) for Discovery but use only two levels (not internationals) for most other programs and only Panel of Experts for infrastructure (LIEF) program. These changes are designed to reduce assessor workloads. It is also proposed that initial assessments will only be undertaken by specialist assessors not generalists as currently applies. It is proposed to revise the assessment structure to: Peer reviewers – individuals who provide written assessment. An extensive group of specialists matched at 6 digit Field of Research (FOR) level. Panel Reviewers – moderate assessment information, develop feedback on uncompetitive grants and make funding recommendations. Panels to be organised at 4 digit FOR level – about 25 panels envisaged to cover Discovery program. Interdisciplinary leaders – the Chairs and co-chairs of panel review committees, matched to 2 digit FOR codes. Consider panel review committee recommendations finalise funding proposals. Other issues: Payment only to interdisciplinary leaders – equivalent to College of Experts. ARC seeking comment on adequacy of selection criteria on proposed project content ARC suggesting replacing “track record” with “research opportunities and performance evidence” to explicitly take account of career interruptions such as child birth, carers responsibilities or misadventure as well as ‘research opportunities in the context of employment situation’. As well as publications, outputs to also include consultancies, patents, policy advice, HDR supervision and so forth. All these to be contextualised in disciplinary contexts. Relative weighting between investigator and project (FASTS President, Ken Baldwin, has previously suggested researchers should be able to ‘dial-up’ a balance somewhere between 20:80 and 80:20 to encourage riskier projects for those with established track records and similarly to reduce weighting of track record for early career researchers). ECR issues Assessors able to indicate a level of confidence they have in the scores they give Simplifying budget requests Feedback to unsuccessful applicants Regards Bradley Smith Executive director Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) PO Box 259 Canberra city, act 2601 ph: 02 6257 2891 fax: 02 6257 2897 mobile: 0408 511 261 bradley.smith@fasts.org www.fasts.org ============================================== 2009 - The International Year of Astronomy http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/iya ============================================== Dr John O'Byrne Senior Lecturer Chair, Academic Programs Committee Secretary, Astronomical Society of Australia Inc. (I have a life, I'm just saving it for later) Room 568, Physics Annexe A29 Sydney Institute for Astronomy School of Physics University of Sydney N.S.W. AUSTRALIA 2006 Tel: +61-2-9351-3184 Email: j.obyrne@physics.usyd.edu.au Fax: +61-2-9351-7726 Web: www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~obyrne/ ============================================== GetUp! (http://www.getup.org.au/) This email uses 100% recycled words and ideas. Do you really need to print it?