I promised a thread to explain the huge ARC eligibility issue that's affected #FutureFellowships & #DECRA so far, and will enormously impact #DiscoveryProjects as well.
Honestly, it's possibly @arc_gov_au's lowest point yet.
What's happened? Brace yourself.
Honestly, it's possibly @arc_gov_au's lowest point yet.
What's happened? Brace yourself.
The @arc_gov_au has ruled *dozens* of fellowship grants ineligible because the applications cited "preprints".
Not just in the applicants' publication list, but *anywhere* in the app.
Not just those co-authored by the applicant, but *any* "preprint".
Not just in the applicants' publication list, but *anywhere* in the app.
Not just those co-authored by the applicant, but *any* "preprint".
https://twitter.com/matthewbailes/status/1427570698780745732?s=20
There was a trickle of reports when #FutureFellowships came out last week.
It became a flood after #DECRAs this week.
Now more than 20 researchers have publicly stated or DMed that they've been ruled ineligible 'coz they've cited a "preprint". There'll be many more, of course.
It became a flood after #DECRAs this week.
Now more than 20 researchers have publicly stated or DMed that they've been ruled ineligible 'coz they've cited a "preprint". There'll be many more, of course.
Heartbreakingly, these people would most likely have been awarded the grants. The ARC only scrutinise eligibility for the highest-ranked proposals, after the selection meeting.
That is (I am fairly sure), these ineligible grants would have been recommended for funding.
That is (I am fairly sure), these ineligible grants would have been recommended for funding.
Fellowships mean *so much* to ECRs.
It's profoundly sad that some DMers told me this has ended their research careers. Their contracts end this year, & personal circumstances bind them to Oz.
The fellowship was their last shot. And they did it!
But the ARC took it away.
It's profoundly sad that some DMers told me this has ended their research careers. Their contracts end this year, & personal circumstances bind them to Oz.
The fellowship was their last shot. And they did it!
But the ARC took it away.
Others have told me their uni offered them A. Permanent. Job.! Contingent on them getting the fellowship.
Well, the ARC's stupid rule has ruined that, too.
Well, the ARC's stupid rule has ruined that, too.
Why?
Without much consultation (any?) or awareness-raising (at all?), the ARC changed its rules.
(For those playing at home, that might sound familiar.)
They slipped this single-line corker into the "Instructions to applicants" for most (all?) of this year's schemes👇
Without much consultation (any?) or awareness-raising (at all?), the ARC changed its rules.
(For those playing at home, that might sound familiar.)
They slipped this single-line corker into the "Instructions to applicants" for most (all?) of this year's schemes👇
What's that? Not familiar with the definition of "should not"?
Ha ha. Let the ARC school you. It means:
"You mustn't, under any circumstances, even though it's common practice in refereed publications in your field, or we'll scupper months of your work & ours."
Ha ha. Let the ARC school you. It means:
"You mustn't, under any circumstances, even though it's common practice in refereed publications in your field, or we'll scupper months of your work & ours."
Speaking of definitions, what's a "preprint" here? Helpfully, the ARC don't say! Not here in the instructions to applicants.
What? Why would they? It's not like this could have dire consequences & is a completely new rule, right?
More below.
What? Why would they? It's not like this could have dire consequences & is a completely new rule, right?
More below.
Later in the instructions, in the bit where applicants list their own publications, it says not to "include or refer to pre-prints in your application" 👇
Does that mean just this publication list part of the app, or anywhere?
Clear as mud. Moving on…
Does that mean just this publication list part of the app, or anywhere?
Clear as mud. Moving on…
Oh, but what's this about the ARC Open Access Policy? (Ironic much?)
Let's check. Follow a few clicks through the ARC's labyrinthine website and … bingo!
A "preprint" is something "submitted to a journal or other publication".
Let's check. Follow a few clicks through the ARC's labyrinthine website and … bingo!
A "preprint" is something "submitted to a journal or other publication".
The ARC don't say anything else, besides this definition of "preprint" buried in their website, about what applicants "should not" "include" (<– also undefined).
Why does that matter?
Because some (>5) DMers showed me the only unpublished work they cited was NOT "submitted to a journal" or elsewhere.
Technical reports, software descriptions, white papers etc.
Not porto-journal articles. Not preprints! Even by ARC's own definition!
Because some (>5) DMers showed me the only unpublished work they cited was NOT "submitted to a journal" or elsewhere.
Technical reports, software descriptions, white papers etc.
Not porto-journal articles. Not preprints! Even by ARC's own definition!
So far, that I know of, 12+ grants have been made ineligible for citing a "preprint" that was not co-authored by the applicant.
And 5+ of these cited something that was *not* a "preprint".
This is just for the fellowship schemes!
And 5+ of these cited something that was *not* a "preprint".
This is just for the fellowship schemes!
The #DiscoveryProjects selection meeting is being held right now.
The "Eligibility Committee" will meet after that to (presumably) run some lazy keyword searches for "arXiv" etc. to rule some of the *highest ranked* research proposals ineligible.
The "Eligibility Committee" will meet after that to (presumably) run some lazy keyword searches for "arXiv" etc. to rule some of the *highest ranked* research proposals ineligible.
This new ARC rule is wrong.
It ignores current accepted practice in (AFAIK) astronomy, biology, chemistry, maths (esp.) & physics.
Worse still, its meaning & import was not properly communicated by the ARC to applicants or Research Offices.
Many ROs have missed it as a result.
It ignores current accepted practice in (AFAIK) astronomy, biology, chemistry, maths (esp.) & physics.
Worse still, its meaning & import was not properly communicated by the ARC to applicants or Research Offices.
Many ROs have missed it as a result.
This new preprint rule has got to go.
The assessors & ARC College are *more than capable* of understanding the relevance of different materials in *their* fields.
That's why the ARC use them!
The discipline experts should judge this, not ARC staff.
The assessors & ARC College are *more than capable* of understanding the relevance of different materials in *their* fields.
That's why the ARC use them!
The discipline experts should judge this, not ARC staff.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
