How to assess applicants applying at an inappropriate level video

This video was recorded in September 2024.

Video transcript

Speaker

• Dr Justin Graf – Director Investigator Grants, NHMRC

Welcome – (0:05)
Hello everyone, and welcome to this short video on how to assess Investigator Grant applications where you believe the applicant has applied at an inappropriate level.

I'm Justin Graf, the Director of the Investigator Grant scheme at NHMRC.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Ngunnawal people, the traditional owners of the lands in which I'm joining you from here in Canberra, and to acknowledge all of the other traditional owners on the lands that you are viewing this video from.

I pay my respects to Elders past, present and emerging and acknowledge any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may be viewing this video.

Thank you for taking part in this year's peer review and for the very important contribution that you're making to NHMRC’s peer review process.

Statements of Expectations – (0:46)
When applying to the Investigator Grant scheme, applicants are required to select the Level that best aligns with the descriptions provided in the Statements of Expectations and justify why they have applied at that Level.

This information is available in the 'Career Stage' section of the application report that you access in Sapphire for each application assigned to you.

When considering the applicant's justification for applying at that level, you should refer to the Statements of Expectations at Appendix F of the Peer Review Guidelines, which describe the typical research experience and academic level expected at each Investigator Grant level.

Please note that the Statement of Expectations and the applicant's justification should not be used to determine an applicant's eligibility, as this is determined by NHMRC through a separate process.

Please contact your secretariat if you have any eligibility concerns.

NHMRC recognises the diversity of the health and medical research sector and the many different settings in which researchers are employed, and the individuals can achieve academic promotion for a range of reasons unrelated to their research career. For example, through their teaching and learning contributions, administration, or community engagement activities.

Investigator Grant levels are not strictly correlated with academic levels, but the typical number of years post PhD and academic level is provided as a general guide. You should focus on the overall description of the level, which covers the applicant's standing in their field, collaborative activities, supervision and mentoring, and leadership roles.

The required justification should support assessment where applicants fall outside of the broad benchmarks. Your task is then to score the applicant's track records relative to opportunity, according to the score descriptors and taking into account the applicant's selected Category and Level.

This will allow you to make a fair comparison across the group of applications assigned to you.

Guidance for score adjustments – (2:48)

Should you determine that an applicant has applied at an inappropriate level Table 1 in Appendix F(i) provides guidance on how to take this into account for assessing the Track Record components of the application.

For this scenario where the applicant better fits the description of another level where you have other applications at that level, you may consider benchmarking this applicant with other assigned applications at the level you feel is most appropriate.

For example, an applicant applies at L1 who you feel better matches the description of an L2, consider benchmarking against other assigned L2 applicants. For the scenario where the applicant better fits the description of another level and you do not have other applicants at this level, you may consider applying the score one lower than the matching track record score descriptor, when benchmarked against other applicants at the applied level, if you feel the applicant has applied at a lower level than appropriate. For example, if the applicant fits a score of 6 when benchmarked at that level they have applied, consider giving the applicant a score of 5 for that criterion.

Alternatively, you may consider giving the score one higher than the matching score descriptor, if you feel the applicant has applied at a higher level than necessary.

Where you believe the applicant has applied at an inappropriate level, we ask that you please provide this feedback to the applicant in your applicant feedback, indicating where it did not align to the Statements of Expectations.

Reminders – (4:13)
In summary, please review the applicant's level applied for and their justification in the ‘Career Stage 'section of the application report in Sapphire.

Use the Statements of Expectations to determine if it's appropriate. If inappropriate, use Table 1 in Appendix F(i) of the Peer Review Guidelines when assessing the track record elements of the assessment criteria.

Note that Knowledge Gain is independently assessed, and the level applied for should not impact your assessment of it. Always consider the relative to opportunity considerations of career disruptions and career circumstances when assessing track record and should you require further advice, please join one of the drop-in sessions to discuss your example with a peer review mentor or e-mail your secretariat to seek advice from a peer review mentor.

Thank you – (5:01)
Thank you again on behalf of NHMRC and the applicants for taking part in this round of peer review, and we look forward to continuing working with you.