Anonymous #10

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #10

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 current scope of research funding is OK.

There should always be more money available to the Discovery program, especially for fundamental science as it will underpin the economy in the long term.

Again, by focusing on fundamental research the ARC can and should shape the research landscape.
Recently, too much focus has been on translational impact, where really that should happen naturally, and will always follow on from great ideas.

Q2. Do you consider the current ARC governance model is adequate for the ARC to perform its functions?

If not, how could governance of the ARC be improved? For example, should the ARC Act be amended to incorporate a new governance model that establishes a Board on the model outlined in the consultation paper, or another model.

Please expand on your reasoning and/or provide alternative suggestions to enhance the governance, if you consider this to be important.

Remove all and any opportunity for political interference.
The fact that a minister can determine if a grant should be funded is against all principals of science.
Only our peer can do that.

Funding from the government should be raised at least in line with inflations and rise as a percentage of GDP, to at least average levels in the OECD,

Q4. Should the ARC Act be amended to consolidate the pre-eminence or importance of peer review?

Please provide any specific suggestions you may have for amendment of the Act, and/or for non-legislative measures.

Yes, is the simple answer to that question.

Q5. Please provide suggestions on how the ARC, researchers and universities can better preserve and strengthen the social licence for public funding of research?

To play devils advocate for a moment.
As a member of the public I don't need to the the details of military equipment the government is buying for defence.
I do not need to know all the drugs that the government allow on Medicare.
I do not need to know all the financial decisions that the government makes.

So why does the public need to know all the details of research funding - when we know, that some of it is very difficult to explain in lay terms and any attempts to do so just dumbs it down.

Let's trust scientists, let's trust the peer review process and let's trust the ARC.

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

Applications too long, too much detail needed.
I would like to see all schemes move towards the Industry Fellowships scheme requirements.

Too much time wasted on NIT picking!

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.

a. more money for overseas travel and exchange. Support Student travel in the HDR stipend.

Reward (in some way) applications that include overseas PIs.
That could open up the possibility that people just put PIs on a grant when they are not really contributing, so it has to be in a way that ties them to some commitment.

Q8. With respect to ERA and EI:

(a) Do you believe there is a need for a highly rigorous, retrospective excellence and impact assessment exercise, particularly in the absence of a link to funding?

(b) What other evaluation measures or approaches (e.g. data driven approaches) could be deployed to inform research standards and future academic capability that are relevant to all disciplines, without increasing the administrative burden?

(c) Should the ARC Act be amended to reference a research quality, engagement and impact assessment function, however conducted?

(d) If so, should that reference include the function of developing new methods in research assessment and keeping up with best practice and global insights?

a. No

b. lots of data already out there than can be utilised.

c. yes, but with minimum burden to universities.

d. yes

Q9. With respect to the ARC’s capability to evaluate research excellence and impact:

(a) How can the ARC best use its expertise and capability in evaluating the outcomes and benefits of research to demonstrate the ongoing value and excellence of Australian research in different disciplines and/or in response to perceived problems?

(b) What elements would be important so that such a capability could inform potential collaborators and end-users, share best practice, and identify national gaps and opportunities?

(c) Would a data-driven methodology assist in fulfilling this purpose?

a. I think the story is told quite well already.
Promote good outcomes (trad media and social media) of research, roadshows, etc.

Specific calls would also be good.

b. Talking to people, looking at the national and international scene, what are other countries doing. Identify Australian strengths and support them.

c. Yes

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?

Reducing the number of applications to reduce the workload of research offices and assessors..
The UK EPSRC introduces a policy where applicants who are repeatedly unsuccessful over the previous 24 months are restricted to submitting one application, as either a principal or co-investigator, in the following 12 months (constrained applicants).

https://www.ukri.org/councils/epsrc/guidance-for-applicants/unsuccessful-applicants-and-resubmissions/repeatedly-unsuccessful-applicants-policy/#contents-list

Talking to colleagues in the UK that haven’t heard of it affecting anyone, but apparently submissions fell after they introduced the policy, so it seems like the result was to weed out weak applications early.

I would like to see something similar introduced here. Many high quality applications don't get funded as they are just below the pay line. But equally there are some low ranked applications that will never get funded.

I know some people just throw in an application because it one of their KPIs, and it doesn't matter if it is funded or not. So the tie and effort to put a quality application in is not there.

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.