Case for support and assessment of grant applications

A full and detailed case for support describing past research highlights, proposed future work, resources requested and providing a complete overview of the proposal should accompany each grant application. All resources must be justified in the case for support. All costs associated with the research project must be justified in the Case for Support, with the following exceptions:

• Estates costs
• Indirect costs
• Investigator salary rates (not time)
• Equipment/facility charge-out rates (although the requirement for the requested amount/level of access should be)
• Some other Directly Allocated (DA) costs General technical services

The following areas need to be specifically addressed where applicable under separate headings in the case for support, which should be of no more than 4 sides of typescript in length, with no more than approximately 600 words per side:

• Scientific excellence
• International competitiveness
• Strategic value within the Science and Technology Facilities Council programme
• Productivity of investigator
• Productivity of grant supported staff (where relevant)
• Quality of leadership/management
• Suitability of Institution/Group
• Potential for knowledge transfer
• Quality of outreach plan

Proposals will be assessed against the criteria above using existing methodolgies and classification system (see Annex A). The headings fall under 3 broad categories:

Category 1: Includes Scientific excellence; International competitiveness and strategic value within the Council programme. The case for support should demonstrate that the proposal scores highly in all of these areas. The Grants Panel will consider these as pre requisites to recommending funding. With regard to the strategic value, the Panel will grade each proposal as either High, Medium or Low, with the expectation that low graded proposals will not be funded. The Panel will take into account current strategic priorities and future emerging priorities into consideration.

Category 2: Includes Productivity of investigator, productivity of grant supported staff (where relevant), Quality of leadership/management and Suitability of Institution/Group. The case for support should provide evidence of the above. Where any of these are not met, or can not be demonstrated, the risk, and any proposed remedial or mitigation action must be identified. If approved for funding, the Council is likely to make an award contingent on remedial action to address the concerns highlighted before funds are committed. All grant applications should contain a publication summary for each individual investigator together with a brief statement of their role within the research programme. Publication lists can be attached in the form of an appendix. Each investigator should list the number of refereed publications over a 3 year period. The 3 years should be the most recent three year period except where there is a justifiable career break or other extenuating circumstances, in which case it should be the most recent 3 years of active research.

Example form: Period covered Jan 2001 - Jan 2006

1. Note: A.N.Other2 was on maternity leave from June-Dec 2003, thus we are using the intervals June 2000 - June 2003 and Jan 2004 - Jan 2006

It should be noted that the purpose is to identify overall productivity rather than to use these statistics to make fine distinctions in determining priorities for funding.  If a lower than expected productivity and/or performance in previous grants are identified this will be investigated. If a disappointing track record, or a lack of international visibility, is identified, the Council Executive will review any recommendation for support before an award is made.
The Particle Physics Grants Panel (PPGP) will require evidence that the leading academics have the standing and time to make a real impact and have implemented a management structure appropriate to the scope of the proposed activities. Applicants are required to demonstrate that key individuals are putting in the time commensurate with the programme needs and therefore with the costs they are charging to the programme under full economic costing (fEC).
Applicants will be required to show how the group/department performs against key indicators, for example permanent staff numbers, teaching loads, investment in new facilities. Any group that performs badly or shows a decline against any of these indicators would not normally be funded without further clarification and reference to the Council Executive. Where appropriate the Executive, perhaps in conjunction with the PPGP, will seek clarification from department/faculty heads, or the videoconferencing (VC), on their future plans and aspirations for the group/department in question. In some cases it may be necessary to make awards contingent on remedial action. Applicants will normally be expected to have a track record in the domain being applied for or demonstrate that they have the ambition and capability to break into new areas.  Groups moving into new areas will be required to demonstrate that the university is making the appropriate investment. In future, the Council will wish to see a clear correlation between fEC awarded on grants and investment in the departments and groups in question.

Category 3: Includes Potential for knowledge transfer (and industrial engagement) (KT) and Quality of outreach plan. The proposal should detail the opportunities and potential for the future in these areas. In small programmes the lack of such a plan will not preclude funding, but it must be demonstrated that the opportunities do not exist. Where it is appropriate, it is expected that applicants will produce no more than one page (at most) each for KT and Outreach. The KT and Outreach cases will be assessed by separate Panels which will not necessarily have access to the whole application; therefore each one-page case should be stand alone with a brief summary of the application.
For the outreach plan it is expected that applicants will show how they will deliver the highest-impact within their current resource, i.e. from within the core grant effort or from existing departmental or institution resources. If appropriate applicants should indicate areas of potential which could benefit from targeted Science and Society (S&S) funding in due course. Bids for immediate additional resource for outreach activities would exceptionally be allowed in the current proposal, but these would have to make a very strong case and be commensurate with the volume of programme. Applicants can also bid into current schemes as normal, and highlight these as required in their plans.
For the KT plan it is expected that applicants will highlight potential KT and other industrial engagement opportunities and demonstrate how these will be exploited. They should also indicate areas of potential for targeted the Council Industrial Programme Support Scheme (PIPSS) funding in due course. Applicants can also bid into current schemes as normal, and highlight these as required in their plans.