Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN2 1ET Tel (01793) 444000http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ e-mail: infoline@epsrc.ac.uk Helpline (01793) 444100

2. Robin Hayden • University Interface Manager: Durham, Newcastle, Northumbria, Sunderland, Teesside • Schemes: EPSRC Je-S System Representative • Peer Review: Panel Convenor (Engineering) • Overview of Process • Running Panels • Decision Actions • Service Standards

3. Opportunities for EPSRC funding • Research • Responsive Mode and Calls for Proposals • First Grant Scheme, Platform Grants… • Collaboration • Collaborative Training Accounts (CTAs) • Collaborative Research Grants • People • Postgraduate Training • Fellowships • Networks • Public Understanding

4. EPSRC Expenditure 2004/5 £510 Million Grants£347M Source: EPSRC Annual Report 2004-2005

5. A flexible source of funding. What do you need? Research Proposals • What are they? • What can I apply for?

6. Research Proposals • Responsive Mode (no closing dates) • Research direction decided by applicant • Main criterion is quality • Includes First Grants, Overseas Travel Grants, Visiting Researchers… • Calls for Proposals (deadline for applications) • For research in a particular subject area • Proposal must meet certain criteria to be considered against the call • Assessment criteria will be given

7. Proposals include… • Proposal form(available via Je-S) • Case for support(up to 8 pages in total) • Previous research track record (2 sides A4) • Description of proposed research & context (6 sides A4) • Diagrammatic Workplan (1 side of A4) • Justification of Resources (1 side of A4) • Annexes can include • Letters of support • Equipment quotes • 2 page CVs for Visiting Researchers & named staff posts

8. Why FEC? • Concern that research at universities was under resourced. • Poor understanding of the costs of research: only directly attributable costs were being fully recouped; ‘overheads’ and long-run costs were not. • Universities are now required to have procedures that establish the Full Economic Cost (FEC) of research. • To maintain the volume of research the government is making extra funds available to the Research and Funding Councils to cover the extra costs now identified (additional £200M per annum for the Research Councils). • FEC currently covers Research Grants and Fellowships but not training (e.g. project students, training grants)

9. Research Council funding Pre-FEC FEC Eligible staff costs (e.g. Direct staff (RAs), support staff) Research Councils plays 80% of full costs (plus 100% of exceptions) Other eligible costs (e.g. equipment) Research council contribution to indirect costs = 46% of staff costs Ineligible costs (e.g. salary of the Principal Investigator) University pays the remainder Remaining indirect costs Grants covered about 55% of full economic costs FEC Exceptions: Equipment over £50k; Project Students Paid by Research Councils Paid by University

10. Full Economic Costs - FEC • No costs are “inadmissible” But…………. • Resources must be justified.

11. Justify Justify Fund Headings for Research Grants Directly Incurred Staff Travel & subsistence Equipment (under £50k) Other costs STAFF: Research, Technician Fellows, Visiting Researchers, Other DirectlyAllocated Investigators Other Directly Allocated costs Estates Costs PI and Co-I(s) Shared Staff costs Research Facilities / existing equipment Other Indirect Costs Indirect costs Exceptions Staff (Project Students) Equipment (over £50k) Other costs

12. Pre-FEC Justification not required: Indirect costs Need/time only Services Investigators Fully justified Everything else FEC Justification not required: Indirect & Estates costs Need/time only Shared Staff Costs DA Investigators (not salary) Research Facilities / existing equipment Other Directly Allocated costs Fully Justified Everything else Justification of resources

13. The Who, What and Why of Peer Review

14. The Peer Review Process Involves… • HEI and proposer • Skills and ideas, • research and resources • Responsibility for • managing the process • Referees • Expert opinions • Prioritisation Panel • Ranked list for funding priority

15. The EPSRC College • Members nominated by those active in EPSRC research • Selection process involves more than 20,000 researchers • Current College active from January 2006 for 4 years • 4000+ College members • Academics and non-academics • From July 2003 to June 2004: • 16% College members invited to sit on Panels • 83% College members invited to referee New College for 2006 – 2009 now in place.

16. Ethics and Standards The Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan) • Integrity • Selflessness • Honesty • Openness • Objectivity • Accountability • Leadership

17. Response to Referees Proposal ‘Peer Review’ procedures Peer Group Proposer College • Referees: • One from proposer • Two from college Associate Programme Manager Supportive? NO YES Not Supported Review Panel Chair Financial Allocations Programme Manager Rank Order Council Unfunded Funded

18. The Referees Je-S

19. Selectionof Referees • Referees selected include a minimum of: • One of three referees nominated by applicant (think about who you nominate) • Two College referees • May also include: • Other independent referees • International referees • Continuity for resubmissions

20. Role of the Referee • Referees are crucial to the assessment process. • If you are asked to referee a proposal, please provide: • your comments …. …. Which should be: • detailed • consistent with box markings on the proforma • constructive “Do unto others………..”

21. Role of the Referee Referees are reminded that: • “Blue skies” research is perfectly acceptable • Interdisciplinary research needs a broad view • Involvement of industrial collaborators & financial contributions should be at an appropriate level

22. The Panel

23. Meeting Objectives • The primary role of the Panel is: • To generate a rank ordered list of research proposals in priority order for funding • Based on: • the assessment of the referees • proposers’ response to referees • technical assessments from facilities (if relevant).

24. Role of The Panel • Typically Consists of 8-12 members, drawn primarily from the EPSRC College. • Panel Members do not…… • Re-referee proposals • Change the project • Reduce the costs

25. Role of the Panel Panels do…………. Act as a ‘jury’, weighing the evidence in front of them: • The proposal • The referees’ comments • The response made by the proposer

26. Assessment Criteria Primary criteria = overallqualityof proposals Other factors that may be taken into account: • The level of adventure in research • Whether the research is multidisciplinary • Involvement of new/young academics • The presence of UK & international collaboration

27. Speakers • Each application will have two speakers selected from the panel. They will introduce the proposal and summarise the referees’ comments. • Speaker #1 is usually a generalist • Speaker #2 is the “expert” (closer to the research area concerned) This guy is a genius

28. Funding Categories FUND Recommended by the Panel for supportwithout reservation.This implies a very strong steer to EPSRC to fund. FUNDABLEShould deliver good quality research for the resources requested.May be recommended with some minor reservations. NOT FUNDABLEProposals which contain significant flaws and as presented do not merit funding,even if sufficient funds are available.

29. Decision Actions Panel agreepriority order Budgetagreed by Programme Manager Referees thanked andinformed of decisions Applicantsinformed of decision (and feedback if applicable)by UIM Six month moratorium on resubmission of unfunded proposals

30. Writing a proposal Things to think about

31. The Basics… • Why do you want to do this research? (You need to convince your peers it’s worth doingand why you are the person to do it) • Bear in mind the assessment criteria and audiences (use referee and panel prompts as a guide, see EPSRC website) • Read all the guidance notes (don’t fall at the first hurdle)

32. Good Proposals… Are about excellent research And…….. • Demonstrate the capability of applicants • Are clear about the ideas & work plan (what will be done when & how the parts relate) • Show novelty/added value • Justify resources! • Cite all key publications

33. Consider… • What would it be like to referee your proposal? • Ensure peer reviewers will want to read it (are the title and abstract well written?) It can be hard to be objective so…….. • Ask an experienced colleague to “review” your proposal And……. • Looking at successful proposals may help you with structure

34. Ist Draft Feedback, it’s important….. • Use your opportunity to respond to referee comments • Response to referees is a key input to the process • Read referee comments carefully and provide a balanced response

35. Remember… • Why do you want to do this research? You need to convince your peers its worth doing… • Bear in mind the assessment criteria and audiences (referee and panel prompts) • Read guidance notes for completion of the form

36. And finally…….. “There is no grantsmanship that will turn a bad idea into a good one, but…There are many ways to disguise a good one.” William Raub, Past Deputy Director, NIH

37. The Mock Panel

38. Panel Meetings - Process First Pass – speakers highlight: • Important issues identified by the referees • Discrepancies between referees’ comments • Comments on the general level of resources requested • Propose a score on a scale 10-1

39. Research Quality: Ranking DefinitionGrade Outstanding Good Unsatisfactory 10 9 8 7 6 5 Adequate 4 3 2 1

40. Panel Meetings - Process Second Pass – Panel should: • Review initial ranking • Fine tune through further discussion • Ensure that ranking criteria have been fairly and consistently applied • Agree quality cut-off

41. The Mock Panel

42. Mock Panel Proposals - Outcomes -

43. Outcomes of Proposals 1. GR/R80889/01 Dr Geen • GR/S82855/01 Prof. Nicol • GR/R81541/01 Prof. Charlton • EP/C006100/1 Prof. Keenan 5. GR/S98726/01 Dr Osborne 6. GR/R85440/01 Prof. O’Hearn 7. GR/R87970/01 Dr Ockendon GR/R87994/01 Prof. Lawrence 8. GR/T09156/01 Dr Fangohr 9. EP/C002482/1 Dr Reiff-Marganiec 10. EP/C52652X/1 Dr Klumpner

44. Further Information Robin HaydenTel: 01793 444046e-mail:robin.hayden@epsrc.ac.uk University Interface Manager www.epsrc.ac.uk Website