Anonymous #12

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #12

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.

I agree with including the proposed items, and also the further bullet points included in the consultation document.

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 support the governance model laid out in the consultation document and propose the inclusion of a consumer of some kind - a research end-user but a community member.

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?

The Act currently invites the Minister to consider academic credentials but not that these should be fundamental to the role. The wording could be adjusted to reflect this.

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.

I agree with the proposals in the consultation document. In addition, any projects subject to Ministerial intervention should have a 'right of reply' established for those submitting, and they should be offered a pathway to resubmission for the next round that does not require completing the entire grant again, but rather the original submission taking its ranked place from the prior year and to be accompanied by a submitter cover-letter or similar that includes any pertinent information about changes / responses to intervention.

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

Educate the public in the importance of 'blue sky' research and its later applications so that the NIT can include fundamental research.

I understand now the NIT is addressed by peer reviewers, which is appropriate.

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

Having a single system for ARC and NHMRC applications would be optimal. Sapphire seems to be an effective system - could RMS be replaced by Sapphire and researchers have a single profile?

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.

At a recent conversation with ARC leadership we discussed reducing the number of rounds people could apply for as a CI (not just lead CI). Some strategies to reduce the pool and increase the success rate are necessary to avoid wasting applicant and reviewers' time and energy.

These limits should not apply to Linkage.

Submission received

01 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.