The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) are making a series of changes to applications and peer review. As you might imagine, such changes are not without controversy. As a new academic, it is difficult to separate these issues out into ‘things that matter to me right now’ and ‘things that might matter to me in the future’. It is also the case that one must put quite a bit of faith in senior colleagues to explain what impact any such changes may have.
The first change that affects me will be the inclusion of an economic impact statement in the funding applications. The EPSRC Website explains it and it generally seems to be a strategy for ensuring that the maximum benefit is obtained from funding. Applicants will be required to write an impact plan and state how they will ensure that people who can benefit from their research will benefit. (Aside – this would seem like an excellent opportunity to promote open lab books and other open science initiatives. The results of any grant are more easily disseminated when not behind pay walls).
..cont’…
The second change that falls into the category of ‘things that might matter to me in the future’ is that concerning peer review.
“12-month exclusion of repeatedly unsuccessful applicants
From 1 June 2009, we will temporarily exclude repeatedly unsuccessful applicants from submitting proposals to EPSRC for 12 months and ask them to take part in a mentoring programme.
This will apply to applicants (listed as the principal investigator on a proposal) who have:
Three or more proposals within a two-year period ranked in the bottom half of a funding prioritisation list or rejected before panel
AND
An overall personal success rate of less than 25%.
We expect this to affect around 200-250 people, accounting for 5% of applicants and 10% of applications."
From the EPSRC Website
This has caused some concern from the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Times Higher Education . Please note that there is an inaccuracy in the THE article, clarified by EPSRC here
As a new academic who is working on her first grant application, this does not immediately affect me, but may certainally do so in the future. As I understand the funding system, an overall personal success rate of 25% would be quite remarkable. What do we do when our applications are unsuccessful (I’m not supposed to use the word ‘fail’, people keep telling me off)? We revise and resubmit. How much revision goes into such a resubmission is a function of many things, particularly the time until the deadline and the time available to the academic. These penalties seem harsh, however, particularly with the limited notice before they come into effect. For interest, the funding rate for the standard EPSRC grants (responsive mode) over the last year was substantially below 25% and that only includes those applications that made it through to the panels.
Peer review is a time consuming process, but will a ban on 5% of applicants/10% of applications really ease the stress on the system? And what about the academics on the cusp of such a ban, or indeed banned under this system? What about their career prospects? While I understand the need to encourage high quality proposals, I do not believe these measures will do that. Perhaps the desired effect of this is to make academics submit fewer proposals per year, that would ease the strain on peer review.
Personally I’d like to see new academics excluded from this policy. Learning how to craft ideas into funding applications is a time consuming and complex process. I can cope with impact summaries, but internal peer review and mentoring can only go so far. It will take me time and effort to find the right strategies to get my research funded, I don’t need the additional stress of further restrictions. Perhaps this should only apply to academics with a 10 year (minimum) track record of submitting applications.
Update: I missed the Nature news item on this. Thanks Bob!
Last updated:
Sunday, 22 Mar
2009 - 12:52 UTC
I think they should ditch the idea totally – Cameron Naylon made a good point in the comments on this Nature report. Basically, grants are a lottery, so why publish the unlucky?
Ah, I missed the Nature report.
Publish or punish the unlucky?
The EPSRC methodology is an exercise in demand management. Unfortunately it is not a very good example of the process. Its main aim is to ration people to applying for about 3 grants per year. However, an unintended side effect is to make the grant panels a more onerous task with probably arbitrary results. At present if the success rate is (say) 20% and there are 60 grants under consideration the panel will worry about the correct order for the top 20 or so. below that it isn’t important because the grant has no chance of being funded. However, panels are now going to have to agonise over the full list as the 50% cut off becomes much more important.
Hmm. I meant punish, but I guess publish could work too, in some contexts.
Perhaps they should offer mentoring BEFORE people start “failing”.
Yes, that would seem like a good idea. They could include advice on how to get the best out of the system without abusing it as well.
We at Nature get snowed under with manuscripts. But hey, what’s this? I’ve just had this brilliant idea! If an author keeps failing to get a paper published, let’s ban them from submitting anything for a year! What’s that about ‘favouritism’ and ‘commercial suicide’?
I suspect that would only work with appropriate use of the iPhone.
So let me see. The policy of excluding individuals for being so naughty as to have failed to obtain grants is intended to reduce the workload (and save money) for EPSRC. Never mind the morality of this action. Now I can tell you what I would do if I found myself in this position. I would complain and complain and complain. In fact I would make myself a real nuisance (I might even consider going to court). The result would be an increased workload for EPSRC, especially if everyone else complains too. Such a divisive policy is bound to lead to friction and possible litigation. I don’t think the EPSRC have thought through their policy with this in mind.