Anonymous #09

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #09

Responses

Q1. How could the purpose in the ARC Act be revised to reflect the current and future role of the ARC?

For example, should the ARC Act be amended to specify in legislation:
(a) the scope of research funding supported by the ARC
(b) the balance of Discovery and Linkage research programs
(c) the role of the ARC in actively shaping the research landscape in Australia
(d) any other functions?

If so, what scope, functions and role?

If not, please suggest alternative ways to clarify and define these functions.

the balance of discovery and linkage programs

Q6. What elements of ARC processes or practices create administrative burdens and/or duplication of effort for researchers, research offices and research partners?

-The amount of information needed for international collaborators is too high and perceived to be unnecessary. This often also increases the administrative burden on international collaborators who are supporting the grant. The ROPE and funding success on international collaborators does not need to be to the same length as Australian CIs

Q7. What improvements could be made:

(a) to ARC processes to promote excellence, improve agility, and better facilitate globally collaborative research and partnerships while maintaining rigour, excellence and peer review at an international standard?

(b) to the ARC Act to give effect to these process improvements, or do you suggest other means?

Please include examples of success or best practice from other countries or communities if you have direct experience of these.

- multiple rounds of the DP grants and the use of thematic/targeted calls

Q10. Having regard to the Review’s Terms of Reference, the ARC Act itself, the function, structure and operation of the ARC, and the current and potential role of the ARC in fostering excellent Australian research of global significance, do you have any other comments or suggestions?

- A review of the ARC medical research assessment policy. Assessments need to be made by members on the MRAG who are experts on the topic of the application. In addition, it needs to be made clearer to researchers on how the assessments are made (i.e. the timelines of the process, how the MRAG members are selected to review a particular application, what the MRAG members are asked to assess, how a decision is made based on the MRAG assessments). The MRAG assessments should be completed and the opportunity to appeal before the recommended applications are sent to the ARC CEO. This allows applications which are successful in their appeal, to be funded and delivered at the same time as the rest of the scheme.
- Providing the matrix of scores from the general assessors and selection committee for all grants to help researchers improve their grants for next time.

Submission received

28 November 2022

Publishing statement

Yes, I would like my submission to be published but my and/or the organisation's details kept anonymous. Your submission will need to meet government accessibility requirements.