NHMRC Relative to Opportunity Policy

In some NHMRC grant schemes, peer reviewers are asked to assess the track record of the applicants as well as the proposed research. However, NHMRC recognises that not all research careers are the same and therefore peer reviewers are asked to assess track records ‘relative to opportunity’, taking into account circumstances that have affected the applicant’s research productivity.

The purpose of this policy is to outline NHMRC’s Relative to Opportunity Policy with respect to:

• peer review of applicant track records
• eligibility to apply for Emerging Leadership (EL) Investigator Grants.

Policy approach

NHMRC considers relative to opportunity to mean that peer reviewers should assess an applicant’s track record of research productivity and professional contribution in the context of their career stage and circumstances, by taking into consideration whether the applicant’s productivity and contribution are commensurate with the opportunities available to them.

The policy has 2 components:

• Career circumstances – personal or professional circumstances affecting research productivity (not meeting the definition of a career disruption – see below). These circumstances are taken into account in track record assessment.
• Career disruption – a prolonged interruption to the ability to work due to pregnancy, illness/injury and/or carer responsibilities. Career disruptions are taken into account in track record assessment and in determining an applicant’s eligibility to hold an Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant (in terms of years since their PhD pass date).

In addition to NHMRC’s principles of peer review, particularly fairness and transparency, the following principles support this objective:

• Research opportunity: Researchers’ outputs and outcomes should reflect their opportunities to advance their career and the research they conduct.
• Fair access: Researchers should have access to the funding available through NHMRC’s grant program consistent with their experience and career stage.
• Career diversity: Researchers with career paths that include time spent outside academia should not be disadvantaged. NHMRC recognises that time spent in other sectors, such as industry, may enhance research outcomes for both individuals and teams.

NHMRC expects that peer reviewers will give clear and explicit attention to these principles to identify the highest quality research and researchers. NHMRC recognises that life circumstances can be varied and therefore it is not possible to implement a formulaic approach to applying relative to opportunity considerations during peer review.

Consideration of career circumstances during peer review of grant applications

Under the Relative to Opportunity Policy, researchers’ career circumstances are considered during track record assessment. This aims to take into account salient research opportunity considerations over the course of a research career and is not intended to address minor changes to life circumstances.

Career circumstances do not extend the 10-year assessment or eligibility timeframes (see below).

Circumstances considered during peer review may include, but are not limited to:

Research

• research role(s) and responsibilities, career stage, and amount of time spent as an active researcher.

Resources and facilities

• available resources and facilities, including:
  • –  the extent to which any additional research personnel and/or collaborators contribute to the applicant’s research program
  • –  situations where research is being conducted in remote or isolated communities.

Professional responsibilities

• clinical, administrative and/or teaching workload
• time employed in other sectors
• building relationships of trust with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities over long periods.

Personal circumstances

• disability (including mental health conditions and psychosocial disability) or illness (that do not meet the definition of career disruption – see below)
• caring responsibilities that do not interrupt the applicant’s career for an extended period (that do not meet the definition of a career disruption) but still affect research productivity
• for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander applicants, community obligations, including ‘sorry business’
• relocation overseas, including to pursue work opportunities (may be related to either CIA or their immediate family).

Other circumstances

• relocation of an applicant and their research laboratory or clinical practice setting
• periods of unemployment
• calamities, such as pandemics (including increased caring responsibilities or the need to supervise children’s education at home during the COVID-19 pandemic), bushfires or cyclones.

Relative to opportunity considerations do not include:

• minor (or short-term) changes that occur during the normal course of conducting research (e.g. broken equipment or delayed ethics approval)
• minor (or short-term) medical conditions, or
• recreational leave or general administrative activities related to research, such as preparation of grant applications and publications or committee-related activities.

Consideration of career disruption during peer review and in determining eligibility for Emerging Leadership Investigator Grants

A career disruption is defined as a prolonged interruption to an applicant’s capacity to work, due to:

• pregnancy
• major illness/injury
• carer responsibilities.

To qualify as a career disruption, the period of disruption must be:

• a continuous absence from work for 90 calendar days or more, and/or
• continuous, long-term, part-time employment (with defined %FTE¹) due to circumstances classified as career disruption, with the absence amounting to a total of 90 calendar days or more².

The period of career disruption is used:

• to extend the ‘10-year eligibility timeframe’, when determining an applicant’s eligibility for an Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant, commensurate with its duration
• to extend the ‘10-year assessment timeframe’, allowing for the inclusion of additional track record information for assessment of an application
• for consideration of track record relative to opportunity by peer reviewers.

In determining eligibility of EL Investigator Grant applicants, the 10-year limit on the number of years post-PhD is extended commensurate with the period of the career disruption. This timeframe is not extended for any other career circumstances (i.e. that do not meet the definition of a career disruption – see above). This means that, for applicants with one (1) year of career disruption(s), their ‘10-year eligibility timeframe’ to apply at the EL Level will extend to 11 calendar years, prior to the application close date. Career disruptions also extend the ‘10-year assessment timeframe’ (see above).

Note: The ‘10-year assessment timeframe’ can be extended back to when the applicant commenced research. The ‘10-year eligibility timeframe’ can be extended back to the applicant’s PhD pass date.

¹ For the proposes of Investigator Grant eligibility, 0.2 FTE is equivalent to 1 standard business day (approximately 7.5–7.6 hours).

² For example, an applicant who is employed at 0.8 FTE due to essential childcare responsibilities would need to continue this for at least 450 calendar days to achieve a career disruption of 90 calendar days.