ARC Discovery Rejoinders

ARC Discovery Rejoinders The Rejoinder System Each application will receive assessment reports. You may receive as many as six assessment reports or as few as one. Generally there will be three or four assessment reports for each application. The assessment reports will comment on four areas: Significance, Approach, National Benefit and Track Record. Assessments are provided by readers who fall into either of two categories: OzReaders and IntReaders. The ARC endeavours to have each application read by at least two OzReaders and two IntReaders. The OzReaders will be Australian-based researchers from the discipline that the application falls into and generally will have 20 applications to read. IntReaders will be specialists in fields related to the application and generally will have five applications to read. The IntReaders may be based overseas or in Australia and are chosen for having an international reputation in their specialty. Note: Not all readers will submit their assessments to the ARC by the due date and so applications may have fewer than four assessments available. However, the ARC will load assessments as they arrive. You will need to check regularly to see if new assessments have become available. Applicants have a two week period to submit a 5000 character rejoinder (reply/comment) on the assessments that have been received. Only the applicant who originated the application can submit a rejoinder but co-applicants may view the rejoinder. The rejoinders are not sent to the OzReaders and IntReaders. They are read by the two members of the College of Experts that the application has been assigned to. The two members of the College of Experts will come up with a consolidated score of the application, based on their reading of the application and taking into account the assessments and the rejoinder. The scores are used to create a ranked list to form a preliminary list for discussion by the College of Experts.

Reading Assessments Read the assessments a number of times before beginning to formulate a response. Whilst not trying to read too much into an assessment, think about what the writer is trying to say in the assessment and their level of enthusiasm for the proposed project. If the writer of the assessment is not enthusiastic about the proposal, it is possible that the members of the College of Experts may arrive at a similar position. Usually an assessment can be classified as follows:  Enthusiastic with short comments  Enthusiastic with long comments  Luke-warm with short comments  Luke-warm with long comments  Antagonistic with short comments  Antagonistic with long comments (pointing out flaws in methodology, hypothesis, etc)

These are elaborated below.

of 2 Antagonistic assessments This type of assessment should be read very carefully. If the reader has attacked your methodology, you should consider if they are right or wrong. If they are right, a careful admission can be made and alternatives suggested that address the concerns that have been raised. If they are wrong then a careful rebuttal is required. Remember the reader is from your discipline but may not be an expert in your field. Also, in some disciplines the reader may be from an opposing school of thought. In such circumstances, the rebuttal should point out the existence of opposing schools of thought within the field and address issues that have been raised. Remember the rejoinders are written to assist the members of the College of Experts in coming to a final ranking, not for the writers of the assessments. If the assessment is antagonistic but has no or only short comments, then the rejoinder may be used to clearly explain what the project is about, outlining project or track record developments since the application was submitted. Luke warm assessments These assessments are not uncommon and may be difficult to respond to. Read carefully to determine that the writer has not just toned down an antagonistic assessment. Long comments require careful identification of the salient points. Short comments are very difficult as it is not possible to know how to respond. However in both cases effort is required in phrasing your response, to indicate that the proposal is significant/innovative. Remember if a reader has not been excited by your application, the College of Experts may not be excited either. Enthusiastic assessments These assessments require little response. Conflicting or mixed comments Concentrate on responding to negative comments. If there have been misinterpretations, note the reader’s apparent interpretation and proceed to clarify the situation.

Some general principles for preparing a rejoinder  Provide clear, succinct responses;  Always address the issues that have been raised in the assessment, but remember the scoring system and give more space to critical issues;  Always write in a positive and conciliatory tone, never attack the writer of an assessment. If you disagree, merely state “We disagree” and proceed to argue the positives;  Do not waste space by repeating the comment you are responding to, but provide enough detail to identify the comment;  Help the College of Experts to see why you are excited about the proposed project;  Where possible indicate work that has been undertaken since submitting the application, possibly confirming in a preliminary fashion the hypothesis from the proposal;  Take the opportunity to update your track record, by indicating publications, relevant roles and awards, conference presentations and so on, since submitting the application;