Anonymous #15

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #15

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.

1.There needs to be greater transparency in DP Assessor scores and Panel scores/ranking.

2. There needs to be only two expert reviewers for all grants - the two most senior reviewers being selected. This will ensure a degree of equality across grants and writing 5000 character rejoinders. At the moment, researchers have the same rejoinder limit no matter how many assessors they have which is unfair.

3. If a researcher's DP grant is ranked in the bottom 75% they should be informed of such and not requested to write a rejoinder (as per the NHMRC). Rejoinders should only be requested of DP grants that are in the top 25%.

4. Only 3 DP grants were awarded in the FoR 520505 - Social Psychology and Personality - this is shockingly low rate compared to previous years with only 17 DP grants awarded in the FoR of 520.
The typical rate is 35-40 grants awarded in the FoR of 520. The ARC need to offer an explanation for this.

5. The turnaround in grant feedback needs to improve.

Submission received

05 December 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.