Applying to the ESRC: the Proposal Lifecycle Part 2: The lifecycle

The lifecycle of a standard grant proposal Overview Writing the proposal ESRC Office Checks Peer Review Assessor review The Research Grants Board Summary

The lifecycle of a standard grant proposal

Overview

Writing the proposal

ESRC Office Checks

Peer Review

Assessor review

The Research Grants Board

Summary

Proposal Lifecycle: Office Checks Fails ESRC Office checks: 10% of proposals are rejected out-right, or the applicant is advised to withdraw and resubmit Write Proposal Office Checks Submit via Je-S to ESRC Referee Selection Office Reject Y N Referee Comments Referee Reject Assessor Comments Grants Board Assessor Reject Board Reject Decision N N N Y Y Y Y

Office Checks: the Case Officer’s role Upon arriving in the ESRC, your proposal will be assigned to a Case Officer, based on subject area Case Officer will send an introductory letter Case Officer will: Read your proposal Check that your proposal meets the criteria set out in the Funding Guide Check that your proposal is complete and has relevant annexes etc. Read your proposal and select referees who will be asked to review it

Upon arriving in the ESRC, your proposal will be assigned to a Case Officer, based on subject area

Case Officer will send an introductory letter

Case Officer will:

Read your proposal

Check that your proposal meets the criteria set out in the Funding Guide

Check that your proposal is complete and has relevant annexes etc.

Read your proposal and select referees who will be asked to review it

Office Checks: Common Reasons for Office Rejects There is no real need for proposals to be Office Rejected, yet around 10% are! If your proposal fails the ESRC Office checks, it will be returned to you as an “Office Reject” or you will be advised to withdraw and resubmit Some common reasons for this include: 1. Exceeding the page and/ or annex limits or missing documentation 2. Uninvited / undeclared resubmissions which fail to meet the criteria of having undergone significant revision 3. For non-responsive mode, not meeting the criteria set out in the Call for Proposals specification (scope etc.)

There is no real need for proposals to be Office Rejected, yet around 10% are!

If your proposal fails the ESRC Office checks, it will be returned to you as an “Office Reject” or you will be advised to withdraw and resubmit

Some common reasons for this include:

1. Exceeding the page and/ or annex limits or missing documentation

2. Uninvited / undeclared resubmissions which fail to meet the criteria of having undergone significant revision

3. For non-responsive mode, not meeting the criteria set out in the Call for Proposals specification (scope etc.)

The lifecycle of a standard grant proposal Overview Writing the proposal ESRC Office Checks Peer Review Assessor review The Research Grants Board Summary

The lifecycle of a standard grant proposal

Overview

Writing the proposal

ESRC Office Checks

Peer Review

Assessor review

The Research Grants Board

Summary

Proposal lifecycle: Peer Review Write Proposal Office Checks Submit via Je-S to ESRC Referee Selection Office Reject Y N Referee Comments Referee Reject Assessor Comments Grants Board Assessor Reject Board Reject Decision N N N Y Y Y Y

Peer Review Most time-consuming part of process 3 weeks to respond to our request to review Selecting referees, based on size of proposal: At least one nominated referee Up to £500k: 3 academic referees and 2 Board assessors £500k - £1 million: 4 academic referees and 2 Board assessors Over £1 million: 6 academic referees and 3 Board assessors Case officers will select additional referees to ensure we have adequate number of referee reviews Right to reply process for proposals over £500k 2 weeks to respond up to 1000 words to respond to referees

Most time-consuming part of process

3 weeks to respond to our request to review

Selecting referees, based on size of proposal:

At least one nominated referee

Up to £500k: 3 academic referees and 2 Board assessors

£500k - £1 million: 4 academic referees and 2 Board assessors

Over £1 million: 6 academic referees and 3 Board assessors

Case officers will select additional referees to ensure we have adequate number of referee reviews

Right to reply process for proposals over £500k

2 weeks to respond

up to 1000 words to respond to referees

Characteristics of a successful grant proposal Four characteristics of all successful ESRC research grants are constant: promise excellent research demonstrate value to potential users outside or within the research community convince of the ability to deliver research demonstrate value for money (not necessarily the same as cheapness) and justify resources

Four characteristics of all successful ESRC research grants are constant:

promise excellent research

demonstrate value to potential users outside or within the research community

convince of the ability to deliver research

demonstrate value for money (not necessarily the same as cheapness) and justify resources

ALPHA +: Of outstanding scientific merit i.e. of such novelty or timeliness as likely to make an outstanding scientific contribution ALPHA: Is important as it has considerable potential merit but does not warrant an A+ rating ALPHA – : Has significant potential scientific merit but is not of a consistently high quality BETA: Should be awarded to a proposal which will add to understanding and is worthy of support, but is of lesser quality or urgency than an alpha-rated proposal. Such proposals are unlikely to have a significant influence on the development of the research area. REJECT: Should be awarded to a proposal which is flawed in its scientific approach, or is repetitious of other work, or otherwise judged not worth pursuing; or which, though possibly having sound objectives, appears seriously defective in its methodology. Referee Grading

ALPHA +: Of outstanding scientific merit i.e. of such novelty or timeliness as likely to make an outstanding scientific contribution

ALPHA: Is important as it has considerable potential merit but does not warrant an A+ rating

ALPHA – : Has significant potential scientific merit but is not of a consistently high quality

BETA: Should be awarded to a proposal which will add to understanding and is worthy of support, but is of lesser quality or urgency than an alpha-rated proposal. Such proposals are unlikely to have a significant influence on the development of the research area.

REJECT: Should be awarded to a proposal which is flawed in its scientific approach, or is repetitious of other work, or otherwise judged not worth pursuing; or which, though possibly having sound objectives, appears seriously defective in its methodology.

Referee Rejects Applications receiving an average referee grade of below A- minus are normally rejected without referral to the Board; those with an average of A-minus or above are forwarded to the Board Reasons why your proposal may fail at this stage include: Failing to convey the excellence of the research Failing to set out an appropriate and convincing methodology Failing to demonstrate value to potential users outside or within the research community Failing to convince of the ability to deliver research Failing to demonstrate value for money or justify resources

Applications receiving an average referee grade of below A- minus are normally rejected without referral to the Board; those with an average of A-minus or above are forwarded to the Board

Reasons why your proposal may fail at this stage include:

Failing to convey the excellence of the research

Failing to set out an appropriate and convincing methodology

Failing to demonstrate value to potential users outside or within the research community

Failing to convince of the ability to deliver research

Failing to demonstrate value for money or justify resources

The lifecycle of a standard grant proposal Overview Writing the proposal ESRC Office Checks Peer Review Assessor review The Research Grants Board Summary

The lifecycle of a standard grant proposal

Overview

Writing the proposal

ESRC Office Checks

Peer Review

Assessor review

The Research Grants Board

Summary

Proposal Lifecycle: Assessor Review Around 20% of proposals are rejected by Board Assessors, taking the Referee comments into consideration Write Proposal Office Checks Submit via Je-S to ESRC Referee Selection Office Reject Y N Referee Comments Referee Reject Assessor Comments Grants Board Assessor Reject Board Reject Decision N N N Y Y Y Y

Assessor Grading A1 - outstanding scientific merit/contribution A2 - significant value; important scientific contribution A3 - considerable value; potentially important scientific contribution A4 - some value; potential scientific contribution A5 - some value; inconsistent quality Beta - worthy of support; lesser quality/urgency Reject - flawed; repetitious; technically defective

A1 - outstanding scientific merit/contribution

A2 - significant value; important scientific contribution

A3 - considerable value; potentially important scientific contribution

A4 - some value; potential scientific contribution

A5 - some value; inconsistent quality

Beta - worthy of support; lesser quality/urgency

Reject - flawed; repetitious; technically defective

The lifecycle of a standard grant proposal Overview Writing the proposal ESRC Office Checks Peer Review Assessor review The Research Grants Board Summary

The lifecycle of a standard grant proposal

Overview

Writing the proposal

ESRC Office Checks

Peer Review

Assessor review

The Research Grants Board

Summary

Proposal Lifecycle: Research Grants Board On average, only around 15-20% of proposals considered by the Grants Board are actually funded Write Proposal Office Checks Submit via Je-S to ESRC Referee Selection Office Reject Y N Referee Comments Referee Reject Assessor Comments Grants Board Assessor Reject Board Reject Decision N N N Y Y Y Y

Multidisciplinary committee Chair 20 academic members 2 user members Meets four times a year: January April July October Allow 3 months between receipt of proposal and Grants Board meeting: e.g. will aim to put proposal received in December to April meeting The Research Grants Board

Multidisciplinary committee

Chair

20 academic members

2 user members

Meets four times a year:

January

April

July

October

Allow 3 months between receipt of proposal and Grants Board meeting: e.g. will aim to put proposal received in December to April meeting

The lifecycle of a standard grant proposal Overview Writing the proposal ESRC Office Checks Peer Review Assessor review The Research Grants Board Summary

The lifecycle of a standard grant proposal

Overview

Writing the proposal

ESRC Office Checks

Peer Review

Assessor review

The Research Grants Board

Summary

Allow yourself time Study your funding source: read (and understand!) the rules and the guidance notes Consider discussing your proposal with colleagues or “critical friends” who have successfully obtained funding Think about how you will present your proposal: presentation matters Think about how to build dissemination activities into the structure of your research plan Justify your costing Schedule in time to get your proposal through internal checks at your institution (and Je-S) Plan in time to check the details…… and then check them again Summary

Allow yourself time

Study your funding source: read (and understand!) the rules and the guidance notes

Consider discussing your proposal with colleagues or “critical friends” who have successfully obtained funding

Think about how you will present your proposal: presentation matters

Think about how to build dissemination activities into the structure of your research plan

Justify your costing

Schedule in time to get your proposal through internal checks at your institution (and Je-S)

Plan in time to check the details…… and then check them again

Further information Website: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/index.aspx Funding rules: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/opportunities/research%5Ffunding/ How to write a good application: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Support/research_award_holders/FAQs2/index1.aspx Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/How/researchers/

Website: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/index.aspx

Funding rules: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/opportunities/research%5Ffunding/

How to write a good application:

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Support/research_award_holders/FAQs2/index1.aspx

Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/How/researchers/