Thread by @anandgururajan

Anne Kelso (AK), CEO NHMRC: What was the problem that we were trying to solve with this new system? Rising application numbers, rising costs of research, no extra money, falling success rates, falling morale, conservative research, more applications, poor research outcomes.

AK: Our approach->Expert advisory group comprised of 14 researchers across the country. Consultation with peak bodies and submissions from researchers. Carried out from 2015 to ministerial announcement of new schemes in 2017.

AK: Level of RSP for L1 to L3 is based on ranking post-peer review. Largest RSP didn't always go to people in senior levels.

AK: Track record->Quality of pubs more important than quantity. Research mentoring is extremely important, even at an early research stage. Impact->Currently undertaking a review of impact based on recent round. More to come.

AK: Peer review statistics. Reviewers did an excellent job. EL applications were handed separately to L1-L3 applications.

AK: Effects of new grant program on funding rates. Squeeze point was at EL2 and L1. More L1 than L3 applications.

AK:$30.5M allocated based on structural priorities. Very significant disproportion of male to female applicants for L1 to L3. We are working on this. ROPE and career disruptions are taken into account.

AK: Outcomes by years post-PhD, not adjusted for career disruption. Success rates were higher for clinical and public health. Basic science is lower but better than previous years.

AK: No major changes for the next round. But application open/close dates brought forward. Freeing up summer holidays. Progress towards separation of Investigator and Ideas Grant Schemes. More peer review training and feedback to applicant is planned.

AK: Hopeful for application numbers to come down so success rates can rise in the future.

Now for Q&A.
Q: What are the changes coming up for Investigator grants?
AK: More space will be allowed for track record. But no major changes to the scheme over the next few years.

Q: Suggestion->Hard to compete as an L1 with an L3 who has 20+ years post PhD.
AK: We struggled with this especially with ROPE and career disruptions. Hard to find an equitable way of dealing with this. We really don't know what peer reviewers do here. We are looking at this.

Q: RAOs should come in and sit in the peer review process especially for apps that are discussed.
AK: Its true and we realise that it is unfair that some apps are discussed whereas others are not. We are thinking about how to address this.

Q: Will there be a system of quotas and targets because numbers haven't really changed?
AK: We are working on ways to improve equity within the system, especially for women, those with families, etc. Partially addressed with structural funding but there is more we plan to do.

Q: Equity between different types of impact. How do you compare field weighted citation vs research that is influencing policy?
AK: We are not telling peer reviewer how to do this. We are expecting reviewers to follow the guidelines we provide them with. Looking into this.

Q: Huge difference in success rates, L1 to L3. Why? Should we put in quotas?
AK: We relied heavily on peer review. Was not our policy. We don't have enough info to make any decisions to intervene. Even success rates across each level not necessarily the best idea.

Q: Peer reviewer feedback suggested that they were instructed not to follow for ROPE. Is this true?
AK: We don't really know.

Q: 3% funding for L1 in basic science is very concerning.
AK: We attempted to form suitably qualified peer review panels but don't really know what happened here. Deep-dive to follow.

Q: MRFF doesn't seem to very well out-lined and we don't know how it coordinates to NHMRC. Can the two bodies be integrated to work together?
AK: They are separate funds with separate rules, different focus for each. Working to make this clearer based on specific priorities.

Q: Track-records across disciplines. How is this handled?
AK: Reviewer panels are heterogeneous and we rely on their expertise to addresses this suitably.

Q: How do we know if we should spend time applying?
AK: Look at current outcomes and discuss with your RAOs. We don't want to over-guide. It's a competitive process.

Q: What's going on with Sapphire?
AK: We're disappointed about this. We are hoping to do a pilot end of the year. Stay tuned.

So that's all folks. Take it all however you will. AK will probably come down to your neck of the woods and deliver a similar talk.

One thing that AK said that really caught my attention was her intention to bring application numbers down so success rates go up.

If anything, i think the opposite is going to happen.