BBSRC institute career path fellowships - guidance on assessment

							      BBSRC institute career path fellowships – guidance
                on assessment of proposals

General

BBSRC Institute Career Path fellowships are intended to enable successful
candidates to embark upon a period of independent research or scholarship at an
important stage in their research career. The fellowships are designed to support
innovative early-career scientists in strategically important areas targeted by BBSRC.
The scheme has been introduced to enhance the quality of science in BBSRC
sponsored Institutes in a targeted way, and the fellowship is based on the existing
BBSRC David Phillips fellowship. For 2008/09, proposals have been invited from
early-career researchers wishing to be based at the Institute of Food Research (IFR)
or Rothamsted Research (RRes). The applicant’s research programme must fit with
the Institute’s Strategic Plan and be linked to an Institute Strategic Programme.


Assessment criteria

BBSRC Institute Career Path fellowships are intended to enable successful
candidates to embark upon a period of independent research and scholarship at an
important stage in their research career. The fellowships are designed to provide a
career enhancement to support scientists in the initial stages of their career in areas
of strategic importance for BBSRC sponsored Institutes, and there is therefore a
strong emphasis on the scientific potential of the candidates. In making these
awards, BBSRC will be seeking to identify scientists who can be expected in the
future to make a significant contribution to the advancement of science in the
institute. In addition the proposed scientific programme should be sound, and of a
novelty and timeliness that will enhance the quality of the Institute’s science in the
area being targeted by the fellowship. Proposals should be assessed against the
following criteria:

(i)      Candidate:

         •   Research achievements to date;

         •   Number and quality of publications;

         •   Personal achievements eg. prizes, awards, honours, presentations, student
             supervision, collaborations etc.


(ii)     Proposed Research Programme:

         •   Strategic relevance; the proposed research should be consistent with the
             BBSRC's mission to promote and support high quality basic, strategic and
             applied research relating to the understanding and exploitation of biological
             systems and biotechnology. Proposals should be for projects within the
             strategically important science areas being targeted in the call.
       •   Scientific quality of the proposed research; its strengths, weaknesses
           and feasibility. Proposals should not be over ambitious or of a complexity
           that would not allow researchers to make progress or to develop new ideas.
           Proposals should explain clearly the expected programme of work with a
           sensible timetable, objectives and clear milestones, and well thought
           through experiments. Scientific excellence will be paramount, although
           allowance may be made for less experienced researchers in the
           presentation of their proposal.

       •   Enhancement of institute science; evidence that the proposal is based on
           full and careful consideration to the choice of host institute, with a clear fit
           between the proposed project and the scientific strategy of the institute.

       •   Scientific independence; applicants must be able to demonstrate if
           awarded a fellowship that they will be genuinely working independently of
           senior colleagues with whom they might previously have collaborated or
           for whom they might have worked in a supporting role. There should be
           indications within the research programme that this will be the case.
           Short-listed applicants will be tested on this at interview.


Cost effectiveness

Research grants (including fellowships) now awarded by the UK Research Councils
reflect the introduction in universities of full economic costing (fEC) at project level.
The main difference for peer reviewers is that a larger range of types of costs will be
seen on grant proposals.

Further information about fEC and guidelines for peer reviewers is available from
http://www.pparc.ac.uk/jes/DSR_PeerReviewguidancev1.0.pdf

Referees may wish to comment on the extent to which the resources requested,
relative to the anticipated scientific gains, represent an attractive investment of
BBSRC funds. Resources under Directly Incurred, Directly Allocated (except estates
costs) and Exceptions can be assessed for their necessity and appropriateness.
Estates and Indirect costs must not be considered, and the overall costs of the grant
should not normally affect your assessment of its quality.


Value of award

As part of the proposal for a BBSRC Institute Career Path fellowship, applicants may
seek a research support grant (in line with BBSRC Research Grants) over the five-
year period of the fellowship, to support the costs of the research that is to be
undertaken.


The terms and conditions applying to the research support grant are those applying
to BBSRC research grants. Details can be found at
www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/apply/grants_guide.pdf
Scoring of applicants

Based on the guidance given above, and against the definitions at Annex 1,
candidates should be assigned a score on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as the highest
score, representing a top quality candidate. While the scale should be used in full,
assessors are asked to bear in mind that with only ten awards available, scores of 4
and 5 should be reserved for candidates of the highest quality.


Confidentiality (also refer to Annex 2)

BBSRC will treat referees’ reports as confidential. On occasions, BBSRC may use
referees’ reports to provide candidates with a summary of the outcome of their
proposals. In such cases the identity of the referees will remain confidential.
                                                                       ANNEX 1


Guidance to referees on grading candidates and their science

  (i)    Candidate

         Score:

         Alpha       5.0    Outstanding: candidates who are of the highest
                     4.5    all round standard, and who have already
                     4.0    indicated that they are capable of working
                            independently.

         Beta        3.5    Good: candidates with strong positive qualities
                     3.0    but who do not as yet exhibit outstanding potential
                     2.5    as an independent researcher.

         Reject      2.0    Not suitable: candidates who do not reach the
                     1.5    required standard in relation to either past
                     1.0    contributions or future potential.


  (ii)   Proposed research programme

         Score:

         Alpha       5.0    Outstanding: high quality science, which is of
                     4.5    high scientific merit, novel, timely and likely to
                     4.0    make a contribution to the understanding of the
                            subject.

         Beta        3.5    Good: worthy science, but not of a level to have a
                     3.0    significant impact on the understanding of the
                     2.5    subject.

         Reject      2.0    Poor: flawed science, or science which lacks
                     1.5    novelty, making only a marginal contribution to
                     1.0    our understanding of the subject area or has
                            serious technical deficiencies.
                                                                              ANNEX 2

BBSRC fellowship proposals and confidentiality – guidance to
referees

Background

This guidance has been produced as a response to many queries from the academic
community supported by BBSRC on what arrangements are in place to protect the
confidentiality of research grant and fellowship proposals etc. Concerns stem from
two different angles, firstly the protection of novel research ideas and secondly the
fear that possible patent protection could be harmed by inadvertent premature
disclosure. This guidance note aims to highlight a number of simple steps that
referees can take in order to protect both themselves and their fellow scientists.

What is confidential information?

Any information that is not already publicly available can be classified as confidential.
Anyone who receives information knowing it to be confidential is legally bound to its
provider, not because they have signed any confidentiality agreements, but simply
because they received it knowing it to be confidential. This places a burden of
responsibility on recipients which they cannot avoid. For the purposes of referees
all fellowship proposals and any associated documents are classified by
BBSRC as confidential and due care must be taken to protect their contents.

Why do we need to maintain confidentiality?

There are two main reasons for protecting fellowship proposals. Both stem from the
fact that the proposals contain potential intellectual property or ideas that belong to
the applicant. Firstly, in fellowship proposals scientists are disclosing their future
research plans which will contain innovative ideas which, while not necessarily
patentable, are the result of their ongoing research and they have a reasonable
expectation that they can control the method that this is presented to the world.
Secondly, premature disclosure can badly preclude patent rights. In the UK any
publication, often even at a very trivial level, can be held as evidence that the ideas
are not new and therefore not protectable. What is in the public domain can be
interpreted very broadly and our general advice to applicants is not to disclose
information to anyone if a patent proposal is likely.

What should I do?

There are a few simple measures you can take:

   •   Remember that the proposal is confidential and treat it as such.
   •   If you need to show it to a colleague to help with your assessment, then give
       them a copy of this guide and ensure that they realise you are seeking their
       views in confidence.
   •   If you do consult another colleague, let BBSRC know when you send in your
       assessment.
   •   When you have completed your assessment, do not keep the proposal where
       it may be seen by other people. Ideally it should be returned with your
       assessment to BBSRC.