Anonymous #07

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #07

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.

The future role of the ARC should really be about funding research that fosters creativity and innovation, and repairs (sorry to say) and subsequently maintains Australia's international standing. Bringing Australia back to a decent level of academic innovation and related international competitiveness will obviously boost the nation and its economy, but the driving incentive should be the realisation that research can only flourish in environments that are not limited by the interference of government politics.

In addition, way more funding for research is needed, especially for such schemes as the Discovery Projects. The most recent success rate for the DPs was 18%. My colleagues in northern Europe are astonished that that is even allowed in Australia. In Europe in general, if a grant scheme is not able to fund more than 40% of the total amount of applications and fails to generate more money to get to that level, it will have to move on to the world of fantasy.

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.

Take one of my own recent DP applications. This was the 4th submission of the same proposal and it's interesting to see how the assessment fluctuates: first attempt, top 2%; second, top 10%; third, bottom 25%; and fourth, 50-75%. It's tempting to reflect on this in terms of a gamble, but I am most surprised about the score on feasibility (25%) because all 3 assessors thought the project is very feasible. It seems the ARC panel can be quite powerful in their assessment of things. On the basis of which criteria did the panel reach that conclusion?

Variability in assessment results across years but also referees results in mistrust among grant applicants about the review process. This should be avoided as much as possible. Ensuring transparency is of the utmost importance here. The ARC should opt for sharing panel assessment of the referee reports. What criteria were applied in that process for ranking proposals in light of their readings and the referee reports? The aim of these efforts should be to achieve consistency in the review process, not just by providing broadly formulated common definitions for each assessment criterion, but detailed reasons for the rejection or acceptance of research projects.

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?

Above all more funding, but the ARC also needs to distance itself from its self-assessment as being highly objective, reliable, and consistent. This attitude has emerged in response to years of criticism from academia, mediocre performance, and defense against attacks from national political players. As a result, the many in the organisation now have a great many fantasies about peer review and the quality of panels. Peer-review has significant biases associated with applicants, assessors, and their interaction (e.g., age, gender, university, academic rank, research team composition, nationality, and experience). Like peer reviews, the ARC panel assessment process also tends to lack reliability of which its lack of transparency is probably a sign. Hence the ARC ought to experiment with alternative assessment systems such as the reader system which in countries in Europe is substantially more reliable and strategically advantageous.

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.

Peer-review has significant biases associated with applicants, assessors, and their interaction (e.g., age, gender, university, academic rank, research team composition, nationality, experience). Like peer reviews the ARC panel assessment also tends to lack reliability of which its lack of transparency is probably a sign. Hence the ARC ought to experiment with alternative assessment systems such as the reader system which in countries in Europe is substantially more reliable and strategically advantageous.

Q5. Please provide suggestions on how the ARC, researchers and universities can better preserve and strengthen the social licence for public funding of research?

A more respectful, well-intended and ongoing dialogue with academia.

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

Overly burdensome application formats

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.

Transparency is the key here!

Submission received

24 November 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.