Science Foundation Ireland

1

• Science Foundation Ireland
• Research Frontiers Programme (RFP)

2
Overview

• Introduction
• Eligibility
• Proposal Submission Structure
• Review Process
• Application Preparation
• Q A

3
Introduction

• Objectives
• To support innovative, cutting-edge and
  internationally competitive research in a broad
  range of disciplines in Science, Mathematics and
  Engineering.
• To establish a mechanism of looking forward to
  allow for changes in strategic areas in the
  future.
• To provide a broad base of support to underpin
  the strategic areas of Biotechnology, Information
  Communications Technology, and Sustainable
  Energy Energy-Efficient Technologies.
• To provide advanced education and training for
  young researchers in a wide variety of areas.

4
Eligibility

• Applicant must be
• a member of the academic staff (permanent or with
  a contract that covers the period of the grant),
  or
• a contract researcher recognised by the research
  body as an independent investigator who will have
  an independent office and research space at the
  host research body for which he/she will be fully
  responsible, for at least the duration of the SFI
  grant, or
• an individual who will be recognised by the
  research body upon receipt of the SFI grant as a
  contract researcher as defined above. The
  applicant does not necessarily need to be
  employed by the research body at the time of
  proposal submission.

Research body endorsement certifies that
applicant meets eligibility criteria
5
Eligibility

• Applicant must hold a Ph.D., M.D. or equivalent,
  by closing date of Call
• Applicant is expected to have the capability and
  authority to mentor and supervise postgraduate
  students and postdoctoral researchers

This competition is intended for independent
researchers only
Where an applicant fails to meet the eligibility
criteria, the application will be deemed
ineligible and will not be accepted for review.
6
Eligibility October 2008 RFP Deadline
Applicants, or co-applicants, who submit an
application to the SFI PI or PICA Autumn 2008
Call are not entitled to submit a concurrent
application to the Research Frontiers Programme.
Submission of an application to the Research
Frontiers Programme may affect eligibility to
submit to other SFI Programmes please refer to
appropriate Call document. For example,
applicants who submit a proposal to the Research
Frontiers Programme will not be eligible to
submit an application (as applicant or
co-applicant) to the PI or PICA Spring Call 2009.
7
Eligibility Advance notice for Autumn 2009 RFP
Deadline

• Investigators named as an applicant, or
  co-applicant, on a proposal currently under
  review (under the SFI PI, PICA, PIYRA, Research
  Professor Programme ) are not entitled to submit
  a concurrent application to the Research
  Frontiers Programme.
• Investigators who have received an SFI Award
  (start date as per Letter of Offer), as either PI
  or co-PI (under the PI, PICA, PIYRA, Research
  Professor Programme) during the 6 MONTHS prior to
  the Call deadline are not entitled to submit an
  application to the Research Frontiers Programme.

8
Proposal Submission

• Research Frontiers Programme is now a ONE STAGE
  Process, with the elimination of the pre-proposal
  stage
• Applications will only be accepted through the
  Award Management System (AMS)
• Applicants may only submit ONE proposal as
  applicant
• Note No restriction on the number of proposals
  on which an individual can act as a collaborator

Following submission, an application cannot be
withdrawn and modified for resubmission in the
same Call. Proposals received after the deadline
will not be accepted.
9
Application Preparation

• All text should be written in single-spaced using
  at least 12 point Times New Roman font, or
  similar, with at least 2.54 cm (1 in) right and
  left margins.
• The number of words/pages in any given section
  must not exceed the specifications.
• Appendices, or other unsolicited documentation,
  e.g. equipment quotations, are not permitted.
• All attachments in the AMS must be submitted in
  Adobe PDF format and should not exceed 2MB.
• Do not cut and paste anything to the Offline
  Assistant directly from Microsoft Word, HTML
  code, or other code. Paste to a Wordpad text
  file, and then cut and paste to the Offline
  Assistant.

Applications not adhering to the specified
guidelines (e.g. page limit specifications), or
with incomplete content, will be deemed
ineligible and will not be accepted for review.
10
Proposal Structure

• Proposal Title
• Applicant Details
• Collaborator Details (if any)
• Lay Abstract (max. 100 words)
• Scientific Abstract (max. 100 words)
• Scientific Content (max. 8 pages)
• References (no page limitations)
• CV Applicant and Collaborator(s) (max. 2
  pages MUST be included for EACH collaborator)
• Support of Applicant (current and pending)
• Budget (staff, equipment, materials and travel)
  justification (max. 1 page)
• Letter(s) of Support (MUST be included for each
  collaborator)

11
Application Scientific Content

• 1. What is the question this proposal addresses?
• Include research aim, objectives, hypotheses, as
  appropriate. The objectives should be coherent
  well planned and should be linked with real
  deliverables
• 2. Why is this question important?
• Include the background for context details of
  the state of the art in the research field should
  be included (with references)
• 3. How will the question be addressed?
• Include details of the methodology. Timelines,
  milestones and expected outputs for the proposed
  research should be included, as appropriate.

Scientific Content - 8 pages max.
12
Application Scientific Content

• What is your recent record of accomplishment in
  research that would suggest that you can achieve
  success in addressing this problem?
• Also clearly identify the role of collaborator(s)
  in the project
• What is the value of this research to Ireland?
• Make the case for the value of the research to
  Ireland
• Include within the 8-page limit do not exceed
  250 words

Structure proposal under above headings
References NOT included within 8 page limit
13
CV (to include)

• List of most relevant publications from the last
  3 years, in order of significance include
  author(s), title of article, name of publication,
  date of publication and details (such as volume,
  pages)
• Summary of total number of publications
  (categorised as journal publications, refereed
  conference proceedings, books, book chapters,
  etc.)
• List of patents, granted or pending, including
  application number, title, year and assigned
  inventors
• Brief grant support history
• List of awards, honours and professional
  activities
• Details of any significant delays in research
  activity
• Note List of current and pending research
  funding of APPLICANT should NOT be included in
  the CV (details are captured in Support section
  in AMS).

CV of the applicant (max. 2 pages) must be
submitted CV of each named collaborator (max. 2
pages) must be submitted
14
Budget

• Awards may be up to 250,000 (total direct costs)
  and may be up to 4 years duration
• A minimum of ONE postgraduate student must be
  recruited on the grant
• Research Frontiers Programme awards do not fund
  the salary or benefits of the applicant and/or
  collaborators
• Budget allocation for equipment is normally up to
  25,000 - if funding for a larger equipment item
  is requested, this must be fully justified
• Budget justification ONE page max. (do NOT
  include summary table, this is generated
  separately from data entered into AMS)

Institutional submission of an application
through the AMS serves as research body approval
of the requested budget.
15
Letters of Support

• Letter of support from ALL named collaborator(s)
  MUST be included
• Full details of the nature of the collaboration
  or intended support should be provided
• Letters MUST be signed.

Applications with incomplete content will be
deemed ineligible and will not be accepted for
review.
16
Review Process

• Panel-based peer review process
• ALL international reviewers
• Proposals are reviewed by at least 3 peers with
  broad expertise in the research area
• Each reviewer will review several proposals
• Reviewers who provide written reviews will also
  serve as panel members

Selection of reviewers is at the sole and
exclusive discretion of SFI
17
Review Process

• Profile Spectrum of Reviewers
• Research intensive in areas of panel emphasis
• Department chairs with broader scientific
  experience
• Experience with review in panel setting
• Mostly from academia with occasional industry
  reviewers
• Balance of younger and more senior
  reviewer-scientists
• Span multidisciplinary strands
• SFI considers the panel recommendations when
  making funding decisions
• Final funding decisions are at the sole and
  exclusive discretion of the SFI
• Following conclusion of the review process
  applicants will receive feedback - individual
  reviewers and panel comments

18
Review Panels

• Astronomy (AST)
• Biochemistry (BIC)
• Biomolecular Medicine Therapeutics (BMT)
• Cancer (CAN)
• Chemistry Analytical and Physical (CAP)
• Chemistry Synthetic (CHS)
• Computer Science (CMS)
• Ecology, Evolutionary, Organismal Biology
  Environmental Science (EOB)

• Engineering Mech (ENM)
• Engineering Electronic/Electrical Computer
  (ECE)
• Genetics (GEN)
• Geoscience (GEO)
• Materials (MTR)
• Mathematics (MTH)
• Neuroscience (NES)
• Physics (PHY)

19
Review Panels

• When considering the most appropriate panel for
  the proposal, applicants should consider
• The core topic area and research activity of the
  proposal.
• The research area where significant scientific
  advances are likely to be made as a result of the
  award.
• The journals in which the outcomes of the
  proposed research are likely to be published.
• The appropriateness of the likely panel members
  to review the proposal.

20
Review Criteria

• Quality, significance, novelty and relevance of
  the proposed research, including the potential to
  advance knowledge and understanding within its
  own field or across other fields of science,
  mathematics and engineering.
• Quality, significance and relevance of the recent
  research record of the applicant (commensurate
  with career stage).
• Quality, significance, and relevance of the
  proposed researchs potential contribution to
  fields of science, mathematics or engineering,
  and consequently to the economic, scientific, and
  educational development of Ireland.

21
Review Criteria Quality, significance, novelty
relevance of research

• Think through research project and methodology
  with care

Reviewer Comments The proposal does not test a
specific hypothesis but rather takes an
exploratory approach . . . The goals appear
diffuse the proposal is unfocused . . There
are no plans for validation.. The fieldwork
plan is rather unfocused lacks a clearly
defined strategy . It is difficult to judge
the quality of the scientific work that will
arise from this project due to the lack of
specifics and the absence of proposals for a
methodology The applicant has provided
sufficient background, preliminary data detail
of the analyses to be carried out

22
Review Criteria Quality, significance, novelty
relevance of research

• What is state-of-the-art?

Reviewer Comments Is the applicant aware of
developments in the field ? S/he has failed to
cite some of the key papers of recent years and
this reviewer wonders about the competitiveness
of this submission Although the applicant
has identified an interesting area of research,
the scientific questions to be addressed are
obscured by the apparent unawareness of the
applicant about the area of the proposed
inquiry.. The project fails to present the
original and novel points of the proposed
research the literature cited is mostly old.
The proposed work is original and a natural
progression from recent work in the field to
which the applicant has made major
contributions..
23
Review Criteria Quality, significance, novelty
relevance of research

• Craft the proposal carefully

Reviewer Comments The proposal is not well
written suffers from misspellings in short it
seems more like a rough draft.. Figures would
have helped this reviewer in understanding the
complex molecular interactions discussed
proposed.. The proposal as written is dense
jargon-filled.. Only 12 lines of the proposal
are dedicated to the approach.. The proposal
is rambling, uses vague language at key points,
and proposes the use of many outdated
approaches.. The questions, hypotheses and
methods are clearly articulated..

24
Review Criteria Quality, significance, novelty
relevance of research

• Be realistic!

Reviewer Comments The approach is both doable
and timely experiments are well-described..
The rationale for a literature search is not
justified is inappropriate with the time-scale
of the project get the student in the lab!
The Gantt chart was useful at mapping both
students to the project aims.. The simulation
component of the proposal is a considerably
larger undertaking than the applicant has
suggested..
25
Review Criteria Research record of the applicant

• Track record appropriate to proposal

Reviewer Comments Well established
investigator, who is well suited to perform the
proposed studies Applicant has an established
track record in the field, has appropriate
collaborations in place and has conducted pilot
studies so that the probability of results of
significant impact arising from the work is
high Applicant has a very modest publication
and citation record. None of these are on ..,
no first-authored papers are listed, and his most
current publications are in areas well away from
the proposed study..
26
Review Criteria Research record of the applicant

• Track record as an independent PI is
  career-stage appropriate

Reviewer Comments The applicant has Prof. X
as a collaborator who is a former post doctoral
supervisor. It is anticipated that results from
this work will be published with the new PI as
senior corresponding author .. relatively
junior but promising young investigator in a
good position to undertake the research.. Applic
ant is in the early stages of her career but has
a very strong and relevant track record and is
well placed to undertake the work..
27
Review Criteria Research record of the applicant

• Track record of collaborators is significant

Reviewer Comments Dr. X has brought onboard
excellent collaborators to see the research
through and extract the most information from
it.. A clinical/pharmaceutical collaboration
would also significantly strengthen the
proposal..
28
Review Criteria Research record of the applicant

• Recent publications/productivity and relevance
  are important

Reviewer Comments There is significant
enthusiasm . . . a more junior applicant with a
good track record, including a number of recent
and pending papers in the area.. Applicant
does not have a first or corresponding author
publication since 2002 relevant to the research
area Applicant has an impressive record of
achievement with a large number of high quality
papers that have been cited a significant number
of times as the standard in the field..
29
Review Criteria Researchs potential contribution

• Impact on Ireland Irish society
• Quality of life of Irelands citizens
• Education training of Irelands students
• Career development of researchers
• Development of Irish industry economy

30
Application Preparation Points to consider

• Read the Call documents carefully check the
  FAQs
• Get input from colleagues - ask them to be
  critical
• At least consider the opinions of your colleagues
• Read a successful proposal
• Ask someone to read the proposal before it is
  submitted
• Check all the references carefully
• Spell check the proposal

31
Application Preparation Points to consider

• Write for the actual reviewers
• Remember that ALL reviewers will NOT be experts
  in your particular field
• Proposal may be reviewed by an individual who is
  a expert in the research area
• Try to avoid jargon as far as possible
• If a similar proposal has been submitted before,
  make sure previous reviewers comments have been
  considered

32
Application Preparation Points to consider

• Ask yourself, does my proposal address the
  criteria?
• Is the novelty/originality clearly spelled out UP
  FRONT?
• Is the motivation/hypothesis clear?
• Are my methods/work plan for addressing the
  problem clear?
• Think carefully about whether what is promised
  can be delivered
• Is your time commitment clear and realistic?
• Provide evidence of collaborations - if these are
  critical
• Bland Letters of Support are not useful
• Avoid inflated claims on your CV

33

• Proposal Submission 17 October 2008 at 1300

Documents located on website www.sfi.ie
Submit questions to RFP_at_sfi.ie