Abel Santos

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Abel Santos

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.

Yes, I believe that the purpose in the ARC Act should be revised to reflect the current and future role of the ARC. I have a few constructive suggestions for the ARC's consideration:
1 - I am supportive of having a NIT included in the scheme and that this should be screened by the Minister to ensure that granted research is aligned with Australia's objectives. That said, the current system is far from good and it is, in my opinion, necessary to change it. For example, the "NIT-picking" process is a horrendous thing that promotes an unpleasant "gossip" and "chater" online. This just increases the stress of researchers since there is this non-written rule by which if you are NIT-picked then you have high expectations to be awarded the application. I strongly believe that this is absolutely unnecessary and undesired and should be removed as soon as possible.
2 - It is also my opinion that the ARC should be mostly focused on fundamental or applied research but not industry-focused. Research co-supported by industry should be placed in other available schemes such as MRFF or DISER programs. There are similar examples in the EU with dedicated entities for this purpose (e.g., ERC does not focus on industry research).
3 - It is important that the ARC shapes the landscape of Australia's research but it is also important that academics have freedom and independence to pursue research lines that might not be aligned (in principle) with those of the ARC or any other official institution.

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.

I believe that the current governance of the ARC is good in general but there is room for improvement. It is extremely important that grants and fellowships are not used for political publicity. The release of outcomes should be made publicly available as indicated in the ARC calendar. This is extremely important and we should aim to do better in this space. These grants are critical for the livelihood and professional career of many people across the country. This should not be "manipulated" for propaganda purposes. I believe that the ARC should be oversee by the Minister and that is perfectly fine. However, no unjustified interference with the program calendar should occur.

Q3. How could the Act be improved to ensure academic and research expertise is obtained and maintained to support the ARC?

How could this be done without the Act becoming overly prescriptive?

I believe that there are excellent models out there. Particularly, I like the system of the ERC, which is highly efficient, independent, and professional in their treatment of researchers and research. We should always do better and do it in our own way but it does not harm to mimic successful systems across the world. Transparency, respect, professionalism, efficiency, and integrity should all be prescriptive. This will help to obtain and maintain academic and research expertise.

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.

Absolutely yes. I believe that our peer review system is poor as compared to that of other institutions such as the ERC. Currently, the ARC does not provide any personal feedback to researchers (the ERC does), which I consider a necessary and desired approach to show respect to applicants. It is true that we always get disappointed with we are not successful in grants but that is not the problem. People would be more understanding if we provide constructive feedback, supporting why this grant or that has not been granted. This will help researchers to identify weaknesses for future applications. Otherwise the system becomes a "black box" due to the lack of transparency. Certainly, one aspect to improve in the current ARC methodology is the system used to rank fellowships. I strongly believe that fellowships are awards granted to researchers to do the research that they wish. This should differ from a conventional grant such as the DP. Candidates can be objectively ranked on the basis of their CV and these results should be made available publicly.

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

Certainly the NIT-picking process. I think it is completely unnecessary as it is and it increases the stress in researchers. I agree that the NIT should be edited but this could be done after the grant or fellowship is awarded. This will stop this annoying chatter online when we approach the grant announcements...I personally find it disgusting and stressing.

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.

Both (a) and (b)

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?

I do not find the ERA and EI extremely useful and I think that they are open to some "manipulation" by universities. There are plenty of data sources and resources to benchmark our performance with that of other countries (e.g., Scopus, Scival, etc.). So why not use them?

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?

Again, it all depends on what you mean by "research excellence and impact". There are multiple tools and KPIs to assess that. Therefore, I consider unnecessary to create our own parameters to do this. At the end of the day, we want to benchmark our performance with that of other countries and therefore we should be using common tools and parameters to do that (e.g., ERC model).

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?

No and thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my suggestions. I believe that, although there is room for improvement, the ARC is now in the right direction. We need to get better at transparency, efficiency, integrity, collegiality, and professionalism to create a supportive and nurturing environment for Australian researchers. No doubt that all system must be competitive, but this can be done humanly and with respect. There are points that need improvement such as the NIT-picking/editing process and the feedback provided to researchers. Also, most of the problems in the ARC are due to budget cuts...I trust that most of the problems will be fixed if the available funding was increased substantially...I understand that this is out of the reach for the ARC.

Submission received

13 November 2022

Publishing statement

Yes, I would like my submission to be published and my name and/or the name of the organisation to be published alongside the submission. Your submission will need to meet government accessibility requirements.