Transcript Rejoinder Workshop Responding to Assessor Feedback

Rejoinder Workshop
Responding to Assessor Feedback
Nicky Church: Manager, Research Grants
Rebecca Marshallsay: Research Grants Officer
Office for Research
Office for Research
Rejoinder Workshops
Responding to assessor comments is the next important part of the
application process for both ARC and NHMRC. These workshops will
provide insights which could help your grant ‘across the line’.

Wednesday 29 May 10.00am -12.30pm
Logan campus –Professor Elizabeth Kendall & Associate Professor
Jago Dodson
This workshop is hosted by Griffith Social & Behavioural Research College

Monday 3 June 10.00 - 11.30am
Gold Coast campus – G06_3.18
Professor Suzanne Chambers & Dr Thomas Haselhorst

Tuesday 4 June 10.00 – 11.30am
Nathan campus – N54_2.02
Professor Zhihong Xu & Professor Jason Sharman
Key Dates: ARC Discovery Projects
Future Fellowships
Rejoinders to OR by Thursday 30 May
Submitted externally on Tuesday 4 June
Discovery Projects
expect early June
DECRA
expect mid June
 You will have approx 10 days to respond
 Check ARC Important Dates for updates
Office for Research
Key Dates: NHMRC Project Grants
Applicant Response
Periods (allocated)
Tuesday 11 June – Friday 21 June
Tuesday 2 July – Friday 12 July
5 days from date of
rebuttal letter
End of day deadline for submission to
OR (submit in MS Word to
[email protected])
10 days* from date of 5.00 pm deadline for submission to
rebuttal letter
NHMRC by applicant via RGMS
* including weekends, not 7 business days
Office for Research
Our role
 The Office for Research will read all responses
 We will make sure all language used is appropriate
•
Even if your assessment is highly critical it is important to respond calmly.
Keep in mind that you are not replying to the assessor but you are
demonstrating to the panel that you can address the concerns raised
 Where time permits we will check for typos and to ensure that
the important points have been addressed
 We submit the rejoinders to the ARC (NHMRC are submitted by
the applicant in RGMS)
Office for Research
The importance of your response
 The assessor comments that you receive do not come from panel
members, but from external reviewers
 Only the members of the assessment panel receive your
responses (NHMRC: one reviewer is on the panel)
 The opinion of the panel members carries far more weight than
the opinion of the external assessors
 Your response could make the difference between being in the
top 10% of unsuccessful applicants and being awarded the grant
Office for Research
Tips for Writing - General
 Assume that you are close to the cut-off score and that this
response might get you over the line
•
Critical assessments don’t always correlate with unsuccessful applications
 Respond positively to all the major points raised, particularly
concerns about your approach/methods
•
Consider the assessment criteria
 Never criticise the assessors – even if you think they deserve it!
Office for Research
Tips for Writing - General
 Have someone else read over or edit your response
•
OR does not have the capacity to conduct extensive structural or
grammatical editing.
 Use simple, active tense over wordy passive sentences.
•
‘This method will’ over ‘The intention of this method is to…’
 Familiarise yourself with the formatting requirements of your
scheme.
Office for Research
Tips for Writing – Structure and Format
 You need to manage the space available to you. Efficient use of
space is key!
 Organise your rejoinder so that it is clear which
questions/comments you are addressing. Some people choose to
have a section for each assessor or a section for each feedback
criteria (ie. Scientific quality, Budget etc). This will largely depend
on your personal preference or the content of the feedback.
 Reference the question you are addressing clearly BUT do not
waste space quoting large sections of assessor comment.
Abbreviate, title, or paraphrase succinctly.
 Make it easy to read. The Panel will have done a lot of reading by
the time they get to your response.
Office for Research
Tips for Writing – Critical Feedback
The assessor has noted a mistake or omission in the application…

Acknowledge the oversight and provide the correct reference, missing information
or reassure the panel of your actual intention
It’s all bad!! I don’t have space to address all of the feedback…

Often it’s not as bad as it seems – we see a lot of assessor responses and hear
from researchers who are concerned that they have ‘been slammed’ in the review.
Very often these are relatively moderate responses.

You need to prioritise and address the queries that are ‘deal breakers.’ Address
critical issues such as feasibility or scientific quality before smaller issues such
minor budget concerns.
Office for Research
Tips for Writing – Critical feedback
They have asked for information that is already in the application….

Address the query/comment briefly and reference the section of the application in
which it is covered
Two of my assessors have given great feedback and the other one is very
critical…


Generally you should assume that if 1 in 3 assessors has raised a concern then
potentially 1 in 3 panel members may have the same concern – so you should
address or rebut it
Do not just rely on the good feedback of other assessors but you can certainly
utilise it.
For example;
Feasibility Assessor 3 has questioned A element of the project’s feasibility due to the risk
of B. We will be employing X, Y, Z strategies to ensure that Y is minimised. Assessor 1 has
noted that our experience and success in X and Y are world class.
Office for Research
Tips for Writing – Good feedback
Should I thank the reviewers?

This is personal preference. Many people lead with a line thanking the reviewers
for their feedback as a courtesy (regardless of whether the feedback is good or
bad) … BUT… make sure it is brief.
Should I reiterate good feedback to make sure the Panel sees it?


Avoid quoting large paragraphs of assessor comments back. Your space could be
better used to address concerns.
Find smart ways to incorporate positive comments back into your rejoinder.
All the feedback is positive…


Congratulations
Utilise the opportunity to address any small issues or concerns
Office for Research
Tips for Writing
It is never appropriate or advisable to;
 Be sarcastic, caustic or aggressive towards the assessors
 To suggest that the assessors are incompetent, ignorant or worse
 To express your hope that the panel has ‘better sense’ than the
external reviewer/s or similar
 To suggest that the reviewers have ‘clearly not read’ your
application properly
We have seen all of the above and worse.
Office for Research
The final word
Based on feedback from successful grant recipients and panel
reviewers.
 Submit a rejoinder – non submission is poorly regarded
 Rejoinders really can make a difference
 Keep it clear, simple and respectful
Office for Research
Office for Research Contacts
RMS Info
373 57784
[email protected]
RGMS Info
1800 500 983
[email protected]
NHMRC –
Rebecca Marshallsay
555 29106
[email protected]
ARC Future Fellowships –
Kath Murrie-Jones
555 29107
[email protected]
ARC Discovery Rhiannon Campbell
373 54100
[email protected]
ARC DECRA
Nicky Church
373 58029
[email protected]
Office for Research