Anonymous #34

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Anonymous #34

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.

Discovery programs need to have a clear mandate and resourcing to support pure (blue sky) research. In the long run the greatest advances come from pure research. The Discovery program is the only Commonwealth source of funding for pure research and it has been increasingly eroded by creep of applied outcomes including criteria of benefits and nation interest tests.

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

The amount of information that is asked for is ridiculous and outrageous, especially with respect to participant details. The expected level of self promotion is frankly embarrassing and cringe worthy - international PIs are routinely appalled. Limit the participant details to a brief ROPE section, a free form 2-3 page CV, and a link to publications and past grants. That's all that is needed.

Allow more space for actual project descriptions that is not encumbered by yet more detail on participants.

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.

Award excellent proposals, not records of past accomplishments.

Global collaboration - provide mechanisms for non-Australian collaborators to receive some funding. This could be transformative for partnerships with developing countries.

Excellence in peer review: current processes are arbitrary and do not ensure that reasonable experts are reviewing proposals. Many reviewers make comments that are wrong - this is a problem.

Submission received

13 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.