No problem. I have reports from others now who have been assigned loads more than usual. So something might, indeed, be different in the way the ARC are asking for assessments … or there's just tonnes more DECRA apps to assess (probably a mix of both).
If it complies with existing policies then I guess you have to try to assess it on the selection criteria that the ARC have asked you to use. A pity they don’t make those at all obvious to the reviewers, hey?
Yep. I guess you can report obvious examples to the ARC but, honestly, if it doesn’t fall foul of their policies, they won’t do anything. If you think it falls foul of academic/research integrity, then check the ARC policy on that and tell the ARC – don’t write it in your assessment.
As far as I’m aware, the ARC doesn’t have a policy on using LLMs to write a proposal. They have one for assessing proposals (which is a blanket “no”). So I think you, as an assessor, are stuck with assessing what’s in front of you? How you do that, I don’t know!
That’s definitely more than usual. Haven’t had other reports though. Sometimes individuals get loads, out of nowhere, while others get nothing when they normally get a few. Hard to know the reasons. But yes, it’s likely to be a very big round. I really hope they fund more than the usual 200.
#ARCSenateOrder Mar26:
The ARC made no grant recommendations in March.
See www.arc.gov.au/about/our-organisation/r...
/bot
You’re not wrong!
(BTW: Thanks for letting me know that I'd accidentally left out the FT26 selection meeting here. I've added a reply to include that.)
Oops. Left out this event:
🔹Selection meetings: Future Fellowships
This is where the new delays really bite. That period used to be ~2 months, but now it's up to 6 months. It's where all the new security/foreign interference checks are to be done.
The waiting will continue until university engagement with industry improves
ARC grant scheme timetable, including open, close and anticipated outcome announcement dates for Expressions Of Interest and full applications, plus rejoinder periods and selection meeting dates.
#ARCschedule Apr26
3-month (!) outcomes window for Linkage Projects (LP25r2) continues.
Other events:
🔹Apps close: Discovery Projects, Laureate Fellowships, and LIEF
Data ▶️ docs.google.com/spreadsheets...
There absolutely won't be a $$ figure calculated by the ARC for this. But it's an astonishing waste of time, money and morale, not to mention the opportunity costs.
It's hard to imagine a grant system with a less efficient feature than this one.
Having resubmitted a linkage for LP26 that is also in LP25, I’ve just realised that the entire rejoinder process for LP26 could happen before outcomes for 25 are known. Would love to see a $$ figure for wasted time between applicants, reviewers and admin staff at the end of all this
Hello, Bluesky.
We fund research that helps shape Australia’s future.
Follow us for updates on funding, research and outcomes.
This is literally one of the recommendations of a report published *last week* on how to make Australia's research ecosystem better and more ambitious, ironically. You'd think that'd be on the Ministers' radar?
bsky.app/profile/ccan...
Petition EN7775 - Make part-time PhD students' stipends tax exempt
This simple petition to make the lives of many Australian PhDs better was presented to the House on 27/10/25. By Parliament rules, "a minister is requested to respond to a petition within 90 days." I guess they don't care? @jasonclaremp.bsky.social @albomp.bsky.social
www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/...
Sounds very plausible. Thanks for this. I’ll still read a bit on it though – I wasn’t aware of this requirement.
Yeah, that one stumped me a bit because, as far as I know, there is very little research “breadth” required to register as a uni (if that’s what that recommendation refers to). I have a note to read more on that specific point in the report (or beyond). Sounds … weird to me.
Now now, there’s no need to suggest that … despite all evidence pointing to it being completely true.
A helpful summary of the government report on the state of research funding in Australia (spoiler alert: it's bad). Maybe now we can actually see some improved investment in Australia's research sector?
Yep, thanks.
Quite possibly, yes. Though maybe ARC Board shouldn't've rushed its reform proposal assuming the funding envelope would remain flat? Would they have proposed that structure if they'd waited for SERD review's rec to increase ARC funding? Maybe they should've waited for Govt's response to SERD review?
I'm really glad we waited 4+ years for this, though, because now we really know – for sure – that that's what's needed. I mean, what if we'd funded ARC more in the meantime, only for the review to say we shouldn't? Millions (!!) could have been *wasted*!
Dodged a bullet there, I reckon. Prudent.
Front cover of the Strategic Examination of Research & Development review report. Purple background with pink title text "Ambitious Australia". The graphics below the text are some curvy, bubble-like shapes with what seems to be a sunset viewed through some drops of liquid. That is, a distorted view of the horizon … a metaphor?
The Government released the final report of the Strategic Examination of R&D yesterday. It's called "Ambitious Australia"🙃
Haven't read much, yet, but it says we should fund the ARC more. Like every single previous review.
Can we got on with it & do that, now?
www.industry.gov.au/publications...
C'mon @albomp.bsky.social, what's going on? People didn't elect you and this government to weaken national science. DO BETTER!
#AusPol #CSIRO #ScienceMatters #StandUpForScience #ResearchSky #AcademicSky
#ARCSenateOrder Feb26:
The ARC made no grant recommendations in February.
See www.arc.gov.au/about/our-organisation/r...
/bot
CSIRO have now lost more jobs under the Albanese Governmet than under the Abbott Government.
We have to do better on research funding and backing our scientists.
www.smh.com.au/environment/...
Senate inquiry into CSIRO funding, including climate and weather research, on now at www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWPb...
My personal opinion is that many of them – and many DVCRs(!) – don't actually know how to explain this to anyone, let alone the public. In fact, I suspect they don't even know why "universities are actually good", in any deep sense. I live in hope that I am wrong.