Selection Criteria
Quality and Relevance of the Project
The primary assessment criterion for a Fellowship is the scientific quality and impact, and the relevance of the project being proposed. The research must be clearly aligned with National and AMMC’s research priorities.
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:
• propose analyses of existing, valuable but under-utilised or unpublished datasets
• addresses a gap in knowledge likely to contribute directly to a conservation or management challenge
• demonstrate how the research outcomes directly inform management and policy priorities
• demonstrate how the research outcomes might lead to improved cetacean conservation outcomes, particularly for substantial threatening processes and/or for threatened species
• are collaborative and maximise co-investment opportunities
Quality of the Applicant
The quality of the applicant is also critical to the assessment of a Fellowship. This applies to the applicant’s track record of publications or abstracts, awards and achievements, extra curricular expertise such as scientific membership, administrative expertise, and work experience in research.
Prospects
The potential of the proposed project to support the directions of AMMC to deliver outcomes that are relevant is essential. Also important are the broader prospects of the nature and value of the benefits of the deliverables from the project, and in particular whether it will help the AMMC achieve its major national goals.
Assessment
Applications are assessed by the National Marine Mammal Scientific Committee against the following criteria:
|
Project 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 research outcomes directly inform management and policy priorities? |
0 Not addressed
1 Poorly addressed
2 Reasonably addressed
3 Well addressed
4 Very well addressed
5 Excellently addressed
|
|
3
|
|
|
Does the project address a gap in knowledge or a conservation or management challenge?
|
|
0 Not addressed
1 Poorly addressed
2 Reasonably addressed
3 Well addressed
4 Very well addressed
5 Excellently addressed
|
|
4
|
Is the project a major analysis of existing datasets?
|
0 No
1 A minor analysis
2 A useful analysis
3 A major analysis
|
|
5
|
Is a Postdoctoral stipend the most effective mechanism to conduct this work?
|
0 No
1 Yes
|
| Desirable: |
Is there co-investment in the project funding
|
0 No
1 Yes
|
|
Total out of 20
|
|
|
|
Applicant Criteria
|
1
|
Do you consider the applicant’s track record of publications or abstracts, awards and achievements, extra curricular expertise such as scientific membership, administrative expertise, and work experience in research demonstrates that the applicant is capable of conducting the research and publishing the results? |
0 Not demonstrated
1 Poor record
2 Reasonable record
3 Good record
4 Very good record
5 The applicant has an excellent track record relevant to the proposed work
|
|
Desirable:
|
Is there co-investment in the stipend funding |
0 No
1 Yes
|
|
Total out of 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Program Steering Committee endorses the National Marine Mammal Scientific Committee’s recommendations, and their recommendation is forwarded to the Australian Federal Environment Minister for final approval.
Universities/organisations and applicants will be advised of the successful Fellowship holders as soon as the results are known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
