1 grantsmanship meeting 2008 linda kemp, grants officer how to prepare a successful grant...

1

Grantsmanship Meeting 2008Linda Kemp, Grants Officer

How to prepare a successful grant application to the Fonds Nature et Technologies (FQRNT)

New Researchers Start-up program / Établissement de nouveaux chercheurs

Team research project / Projet de recherche en équipe

June 05, 2008

2

Evolution and success rate of McGill University applications to FQRNT programs New Researchers Start up program and Team Grants

New Researchers Start up program Submitted Awarded

SuccessRate Awarded

2008 - 2009 McGill 13 12 92% 505904

Quebec 79 51 65% 2315327

McGill/Que 16% 24% 22%

2007 - 2008 McGill 17 11 65% 582212

Quebec 74 42 57% 2235407


2006 – 2007 McGill 20 13 65% 525274

Quebec 90 45 50% 1917956


Team Grant Submitted AwardedSuccess

Rate Awarded

2008 – 2009 McGill 69 20 29% 940044

Quebec 193 65 34% 4380390


2007 – 2008 McGill 40 12 30% 863985

Quebec 181 61 34% 4015059


2006 – 2007 McGill 47 15 32% 907026

Quebec 225 67 30% 4310879


3

FQRNT New ReseachersÉtablissement de nouveaux chercheurs

Success rate McGill applicants / Others Quebec applicants

82 92

6563 65 6562

5041 57

0

20

40

60

80

100

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Grant period

% Su

cces

s

McGill

Quebec

FQRNT COMPETITIONS 2004-2009

15 13

74

1322 24 20 1712

1811

90

106

79

100

5162

43 45 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Grant period

# Ap

plic

atio

ns

McGill submitted

McGill awarded

Quebec submitted

Quebec awarded

4

FQRNT Team GrantProjet de recherche en équipe

FQRNT COMPETITIONS 2005-2009

4012

694753

201518

193181

225219

67 61 6559

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Grant period

# A

pplic

atio

ns

McGill submitted

McGill aw arded

Quebec submitted

Quebec aw arded

Success rate McGill applicants / Others Quebec applicants

3430

29

3234 34

3027

0

10

20

30

40

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Grant period

% S

ucce

ss

McGill

Quebec

5

Evaluation procedures (New Researchers Start-up Program)

One-stage review process

Applications are assessed by a maximum of multidisciplinary committees and ranked as « Yes », « No » or « May be» Applications are loosely matched with reviewers based on Fields of Research and on the number of applications to review

Each application is evaluated by external referees (2 or 3)

Committees members and Fields of Research are not fixed (varies each year)

Follows the program’s evaluation criteria(Budget as well as its justification is also evaluated with the application)

6

Evaluation procedures (Team Grant)

Two-stages review process

Thematic Committees (Expert in the field of research) Assess against criteria score A to D in each Define 3 groups based on ranking Normally no external reviews Small committees for a few applications Phone meetings; vocal members have high impact (Quebec is

small) as well as program officer

Multidisciplinary Committees (4) Assign $$ within budget and FQRNT guidelines/targets

7

TIPS (Preparation) START EARLY!

Read one or more successful applications Outline and draft your research program description Initiate the on-line form from FQRNT Website as soon as

available and note the agency deadline Applications for financial support may be written in English or

French. However, the project title and summary must be submitted in French. Unless you are a francophone, write it in English and get it professionally translated (lead time!)

METHODOLOGY! Present the application in a simple structured format to allow a reader which may not be in your field of research to understand the objectives and direction of your proposal

Consult the section related to the EVALUATION CRITERIA AND INDICATORS of the detailed program description and address each of them

An excellent summary is vital! Do not underestimate

8

TIPS (Pre-Review)

START EARLY! Absolutely VITAL to get the proposal read by one or more peers

before you submit Ideally consult at least one reader who does not know your

research well (or even the research area), as you must clarify any material that is confusing to non-experts

Contact the GRANT OFFICER at RGO for On-line review (DRAFT and/or FINAL) as per RGO internal deadlines

Others Tips: Make sure you link your expertise to the project Be honest with your publications Place your work in context (Impact!) For industrial experience - show its relevance Selected candidates for funding which have requested

some equipment usually receive what they have asked (Request equipment)

9

TIPS (Canadian Common CV)

START EARLY! Allow yourself sufficient time (and/or help) to complete the

on-line Canadian Common CV and FQRNT specific sections as well as the related appendix

If someone is helping you, check the work CAREFULLY! Take the time to enter GRANTS clearly and accurately

identify the principal investigator distinguish grants requested from grants held

Distinguish clearly between operating grants, salary support awards, and prizes

Distinguish clearly between “internal” and external funding sources

Ambiguity or errors may be misconstrued as deliberate attempts to mislead the committee

Always review and update CV prior to submitting an application including publication on or in press

10

Pitfalls (New Researchers):

Applying too soon is not a good strategy Recent Ph.D.; recent tenure position.

Usually few contributions; the candidate is not competitive; is not funded

Ph.D.; no post-doc; a few years in tenure. A few publications but in high rated journals; is competitive

Ph.D.; no post-doc; industrial experience; recent tenure. A few publications, patents or industrial expertise. Has to

demonstrate his scientific contributions. If the candidate could not publish, explain why !!!

Ph.D. and post-doc; many scientific contributions. Highly rated papers; is competitive; is funded. Low rated

journals will lower the mark given to this criteria

11

Pitfalls (Team GRANT): Applicant’s role unclear, vis-à-vis other team

members Particularly if research relies on laboratory

or technical work done by others Team includes former supervisor(s)

Applicant’s expertise unclear, vis-à-vis proposed methods Importance of your track record Targeted collaboration

Requesting the maximum grant funding 100K is not accepted unless well justified

12

Strategy to Optimize the chances of success

In a first application: Make sure that the CV is competitive and that the research

project is sound and include text to each sub-criteria

If a first application is denied: Read carefully the committee’s comments and expert reports,

share them with the Grants officer Identify the weaknesses that require your attention. Choose the perfect time to come back depending on your

eligibility status and address issues in order of importance

13

Evaluation of applications (New Researchers)

Evaluation criteria (Application ~Operating grant of 20,000$/year for two years):

Quality of the researcher (40%) – 3 indicators Quality of the research project (40%) – 4 indicators Complementarity and integration of the researcher within the

research environment (20%) – 5 indicators

Evaluation criteria (Equipment 15,000$ to 50,000$): Tip: Request it!

Relevance Complementarity of equipment requested and others requested

or obtained from other funding agencies Availability of similar equipment Importance of equipment in helping candidae to become

established Amount of time the equipment will be use

14


1. Quality of the researcher (40%) Competence for the research project:

acquired competence and diversified training in-breeding not well accepted

Scientific achievements : grants awarded (peer reviewed) publications (number and quality of the journal) conference proceedings (high rated conference)

Innovations within industry or a research laboratory, outside the academic community, where applicable

Time (potentially) dedicated to students supervision is taken into account

15


2. Quality of the research project (40%)

Contribution to advancement of knowledge in one field or more or to the resolution of social, economic or industrial problems or issues

Quality of the theoretical approach and clarity of objectives

Precision and relevance of methodology and feasability of timetable

Originality of the research project

16


3. Complementarity and integration in the research environment (20%)

Research environment that leads to possible collaborations with colleagues and student supervision

Presence of other researchers in complementary fields (role and value-added contribution)

Availability of research infrastructures

Opportunities for national and international collaborations (evolving or established)

Support from the university in terms of release from teaching, startup funds, etc...

17


4. Request for Equipment

Complementarity with other equipment obtained or requested from other agencies (CFI, NSERC, etc…)

Availability of similar equipment at the university or in the region

Importance in helping the candidate become established

Amount of time the equipment will be used

18

Evaluation of applications (Team grant)

Criteria and indicators

1. Scientific quality of the research project(3 indicators)

2. Budget justification (2 indicators)

3. Research projects impacts (6 indicators)

4. Scientific quality of the team members(3 indicators)

5. Complementarity of the team members (3 indicators)

6. Quality of the training environment (4 indicatosrs)

1 grantsmanship meeting 2008 linda kemp, grants officer how to prepare a successful grant...

Documents