Rejoinders open in RMS tomorrow (28 Apr) – short🧵👇
First: Sooo important to read reviews ASAP. Can be hard. But do it.
Why? #ARC3DayRule. For fun, ARC gives you just 3 days to complain about #BadReviewers via your DVCR!👇
▶️ arc.gov.au/grants/grant-a…
No #BadReviewers? Great!
Now, get as much help as you can. Don't go it alone.
Get help *reading* it from senior colleagues & Research Office staff. Sounds weird, but experience really helps.
No strong criticisms? Look for faint praise – can be just as important to address.
Now get help writing your rejoinder.
First, shed the emotion. Write down everything you really want to say, then bin it.
The only emotion you want to convey is your enthusiasm for the project. (Try to do it without too many❗️s though 😇)
Your audience is 2 College of Experts members with "carriage" of your proposal, not reviewers who wrote reports.
Carriages have read proposal & reviews. What will *they* think is most important?
Don't have a tin ear. Not everything needs a response. Embrace good suggestions.
Edit. Get feedback. Repeat. A few times.
Leave it a few days. Come back with fresh eyes after reading your reports again. Enthusiastic? Addresses most important issues?
Give it to a friend/partner who knows how much this means to you. Can't detect other emotions? You're done.
There's a lot of "What if reviewer B said X?" questions you might have. This is why it's so important to get help from senior, experienced colleagues & Research Office staff.
Ask your colleagues *today* for their help over the next 2 weeks.
@ThreadReaderApp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Mainly positive. Some head-scratchers but no major stuff-ups.
Some things bode well for 2024, but research funding remains shockingly low – cue the "waiting for the Universities Accord" mantra.
But first, an “ARC Year in Review”🧵👇
Overall, we’ve moved from Ministers & an ARC that didn’t seem to see researchers or hear anything they said, to a Minister & ARC who's seen the mounting problems, listened to advice, and started to act.
It’s worth reading that again. Not bad.
Not finished, but a welcome change.
The ARC improved many “little” things for researchers this year – things within their power.
For the first time, they advertised when we can expect outcomes for all schemes, allowing proper planning etc.
#DECRA #DE25 applications were opened yesterday by ARC.
As with the Laureates & Futures, the DECRA app form has been significantly reduced in length & complexity.
IMO, this is a Very Good Thing, *especially* for an early-career researcher scheme.
Short 🧵 on the changes👇
Firstly, like any change in ARC land, it’s not perfect, & will be annoying for re-submitters.
My advice: Don’t try to just squeeze old stuff into the new form. Re-assess what’s really most important for the assessors to see, esp. what differentiates you from other applicants.
There’s a very welcome shift in relative weights of the selection criteria:
Investigator weight went down from 50 to 35%, & Project went up from 20 to 35%
(how was Project only 20%?!?!).
Feasibility & Benefit are both now 15% each (were 10).
The National Interest Test (NIT) was introduced by the previous Coalition Government.
It's a smoke screen for idealogical vetoing of humanities grants they want to parade in front of their supporters and ridicule, e.g.⤵️ smh.com.au/politics/feder…
It's an easy, lazy sell.
As "wise" former Minister @DanTehanWannon said, as he introduced it,
"NIT will give Minister of the day confidence to look Australian voter in the eye & say, ‘your money is being spent wisely’" ▶️parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/searc…
ARC's Linkage Program – 40% of its budget – is being moved more & more towards manufacturing & commercialisation. Minister's recent edict demands 70% go to these ends: ▶️arc.gov.au/letter-expecta…
If there's new $ for commercialisation, stop using ARC's budget for the same thing.
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.
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".
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.