Assessment criteria and process
The Australian Marine Mammal Centre Grants Program has limited funds and competition for these funds is high. To be eligible for an AMMC Grant, projects should contribute to the AMMC research priorities. These research priorities demonstrate the need to focus on questions relevant to applied conservation management. Applicants should consider whether conservation managers will be able to use their research to minimise negative consequences of interactions between humans and marine mammals.
The research priorities are sufficiently broad to allow most research projects to establish some linkage to one or more priorities, but applicants should note that strong preference will be given to projects that
- demonstrate how the research outcomes directly inform management and policy priorities
- demonstrate how the research outcomes might lead to improved marine mammal conservation outcomes, particularly for substantial threatening processes and/or for threatened species
- are collaborative, multi-disciplinary and maximise co-investment opportunities
Applications will be assessed for their scientific merit by the National Marine Mammal Scientific Committee (NMMSC) and for their relevance, utility and priority for management and conservation needs by the National Marine Mammal Advisory Committee (NMMAC). The assessment criteria of each committee are listed below. Successful applications must score well in both criteria. Applicants should take care to minimise and avoid duplication with previously funded projects.
The applications are first assessed by the NMMSC for scientific merit against six criteria, each of which is scored between 0 - 5. as follows:
|
Criteria |
Weighting |
| 1 |
Is the intrinsic scientific value of the project of a high standard? |
0 Not demonstrated
1 Low scientific value
2 Useful/basic scientific value
3 Good scientific value
4 Very good scientific value
5 Excellent/innovative scientific value
|
| 2 |
How well will the scientific outcomes of the project address the nominated priority areas in terms of current knowledge? |
0 Not addressed
1 Poorly addressed
2 Reasonably addressed
3 Well addressed
4 Very well addressed
5 Excellently addressed
|
| 3 |
Does the methodology outlined effectively and efficiently address the research questions in the proposal? |
0 Not demonstrated
1 Poor methodology
2 Reasonable methodology
3 Good methodology
4 Very good methodology
5 Excellent methodology
|
| 4 |
Will the data analysis described address the objectives of this project? |
0 Not demonstrated
1 Poor data analysis proposed
2 Reasonable analysis proposed
3 Good analysis proposed
4 Very good analysis proposed
5 Excellent analysis proposed
|
| 5 |
Is the research proposed feasible, well budgeted, well organised and timeline achievable? |
0 Not demonstrated
1 Feasibility, budget, organisation and timeline unrealistic
2 Feasibility, budget, organisation and timeline not properly addressed
3 Feasibility, budget, organisation and timeline sound
4 Feasibility, budget, organisation and timeline demonstrated well
5 Feasibility, budget, organisation and timeline very well demonstrated
|
| 6 |
Do you consider the Chief Investigator and research team to have appropriate track record/s, including publishing in peer review literature and/or delivery into the policy and management arena?
Please consider early career research scientists relative to their stage of career. Scores accommodate consideration of career maturity.
|
0 Not demonstrated
1 Poor record
2 Reasonable record
3 Good record
4 Very good record
5 The CI and research team have excellent track record/s including publishing and management delivery
|
|
Overall total out of 30 |
|
Each application is assessed by two external referees who score each of the six criteria against the weighting scores (as above). These referee scores and comments are then provided to the applicants, who are offered a right of reply. The applications are then assessed by the NMMSC who assigns a final score for each criterion. These scores are based on the comments and scores of the referees, the response from the applicant and the conclusions of the NMMSC members. This thorough process will inevitably lead to final scores varying (sometimes substantially) from the scores of the external referees.
Applications are then assessed for strategic relevance by the NMMAC. The NMMSC provides a recommendation to the NMMAC of a threshold science score below which projects do not merit funding. This score will vary each year and will reflect the overall range and quality of the assessed applications. Each member of the NMMAC is provided with the scores and comments from the NMMSC. The NMMAC then determines a score on a sliding scale of 1 - 10 where a score of 1 means that no linkage between the outcomes of the proposed research and a management need was demonstrated, and 10 means that the research outcomes were assessed to be highly likely to directly lead to positive conservation and/or management outcomes for priority marine mammal species and issues. Generally only projects that rank 6 or above on this scale will be considered for funding.
Note: Both the NMMSC and NMMAC will not consider favourably resubmitted applications that have not taken committee feedback into account and improved upon previous years’ applications.
Projects which score above the thresholds for each committee are then compiled and ranked in order of score. As many projects as possible above the funding thresholds are supported within the funding available for each year.
Assessment Timetable
| Expected Date |
Event |
| 30 November 2009 |
Research applications open |
| 29 January 2010 |
Closing date for research applications |
| March 2010 |
Applications assigned to Australian and International expert assessors for peer-review |
| April 2010 |
Reviews sent to applicants for written rejoinder |
| May 2010 |
National Marine Mammal Scientific and Advisory Committee assessments |
| June / July 2010 |
Research applicants advised of the outcome of applications |
Appeals
Appeals will be considered only against process issues relating to the application. They will not be considered against committee decisions or assessor ratings and comments. Appeals must be lodged through the administering organisation’s research office and be received within 28 days of the date of the letter notifying the outcomes of applications. The appeal should state the grounds for appeal and be signed by the appellant.
The signed appeal should be sent to:
Chair, National Marine Mammal Advisory Committee
Australian Antarctic Division
203 Channel Highway
Kingston 7050 Tasmania
