Anonymous #19

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #19

Responses

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

- The lengthy application forms. For example, while the spirit of the ROPE is admirable, it could be reduced to a conventional CV with accompanying text absorbed into the project description.
- The National Interest Test. This is a duplication of existing requirements to describe the Project's Benefit and alignment with national Science and Research Priorities.
- Overly enthusiastic gatekeeping of applications, such as excluding references to pre-prints or denying applications due to a too small font size within a figure. Such details can be referred the judgement of reviewers and the selection panel.
- Failure to consider researchers as stakeholders.

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.

- Set publication dates for funding outcomes. Many other national funding agencies (for example, in Sweden the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council Formas) are capable of delivering to such deadlines.

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?

ERA is not needed.

Submission received

06 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.