1. 1 Grantsmanship Meeting 2008 Linda Kemp, Grants Officer How to prepare a successful grant application to the Fonds Nature et Technologies (FQRNT) New Researchers Start-up program / Établissement de nouveaux chercheurs Team research project / Projet de recherche en équipe June 05, 2008

2. 2 Evolution and success rate of McGill University applications to FQRNT programs New Researchers Start up program and Team Grants New Researchers Start up program SubmittedAwarded Success RateAwarded 2008 - 2009McGill131292%505904 Quebec795165%2315327 McGill/Que16%24% 22% 2007 - 2008McGill171165%582212 Quebec744257%2235407 McGill/Que23%26% 2006 – 2007McGill201365%525274 Quebec904550%1917956 McGill/Que22%29% 27% Team Grant SubmittedAwarded Success RateAwarded 2008 – 2009McGill692029%940044 Quebec1936534%4380390 McGill/Que36%31% 21% 2007 – 2008McGill401230%863985 Quebec1816134%4015059 McGill/Que22%20% 22% 2006 – 2007McGill471532%907026 Quebec2256730%4310879 McGill/Que21%22% 21%

3. 3 FQRNT New Reseachers Établissement de nouveaux chercheurs

4. 4 FQRNT Team Grant Projet de recherche en équipe

5. 5 Evaluation procedures (New Researchers Start-up Program) One-stage review process Applications are assessed by a maximum of multidisciplinary committees and ranked as « Yes », « No » or « May be» Applications are loosely matched with reviewers based on Fields of Research and on the number of applications to review Each application is evaluated by external referees (2 or 3) Committees members and Fields of Research are not fixed (varies each year) Follows the program’s evaluation criteria (Budget as well as its justification is also evaluated with the application)

6. 6 Evaluation procedures (Team Grant) Two-stages review process  Thematic Committees (Expert in the field of research) Assess against criteria  score A to D in each Define 3 groups based on ranking Normally no external reviews Small committees for a few applications Phone meetings; vocal members have high impact (Quebec is small) as well as program officer  Multidisciplinary Committees (4) Assign $$ within budget and FQRNT guidelines/targets

7. 7 TIPS (Preparation) START EARLY!  Read one or more successful applications  Outline and draft your research program description  Initiate the on-line form from FQRNT Website as soon as available and note the agency deadline  Applications for financial support may be written in English or French. However, the project title and summary must be submitted in French. Unless you are a francophone, write it in English and get it professionally translated (lead time!)  METHODOLOGY! Present the application in a simple structured format to allow a reader which may not be in your field of research to understand the objectives and direction of your proposal  Consult the section related to the EVALUATION CRITERIA AND INDICATORS of the detailed program description and address each of them  An excellent summary is vital! Do not underestimate

8. 8 TIPS (Pre-Review) START EARLY!  Absolutely VITAL to get the proposal read by one or more peers before you submit  Ideally consult at least one reader who does not know your research well (or even the research area), as you must clarify any material that is confusing to non-experts  Contact the GRANT OFFICER at RGO for On-line review (DRAFT and/or FINAL) as per RGO internal deadlines Others Tips: Make sure you link your expertise to the project Be honest with your publications Place your work in context (Impact!) For industrial experience - show its relevance Selected candidates for funding which have requested some equipment usually receive what they have asked (Request equipment)

9. 9 TIPS (Canadian Common CV) START EARLY!  Allow yourself sufficient time (and/or help) to complete the on-line Canadian Common CV and FQRNT specific sections as well as the related appendix  If someone is helping you, check the work CAREFULLY!  Take the time to enter GRANTS clearly and accurately identify the principal investigator distinguish grants requested from grants held  Distinguish clearly between operating grants, salary support awards, and prizes  Distinguish clearly between “internal” and external funding sources  Ambiguity or errors may be misconstrued as deliberate attempts to mislead the committee  Always review and update CV prior to submitting an application including publication on or in press

10. 10 Pitfalls (New Researchers): Applying too soon is not a good strategy Recent Ph.D.; recent tenure position.  Usually few contributions; the candidate is not competitive; is not funded Ph.D.; no post-doc; a few years in tenure.  A few publications but in high rated journals; is competitive Ph.D.; no post-doc; industrial experience; recent tenure.  A few publications, patents or industrial expertise. Has to demonstrate his scientific contributions. If the candidate could not publish, explain why !!! Ph.D. and post-doc; many scientific contributions.  Highly rated papers; is competitive; is funded. Low rated journals will lower the mark given to this criteria

11. 11 Pitfalls (Team GRANT):  Applicant’s role unclear, vis-à-vis other team members Particularly if research relies on laboratory or technical work done by others Team includes former supervisor(s)  Applicant’s expertise unclear, vis-à-vis proposed methods Importance of your track record Targeted collaboration  Requesting the maximum grant funding 100K is not accepted unless well justified

12. 12 Strategy to Optimize the chances of success In a first application:  Make sure that the CV is competitive and that the research project is sound and include text to each sub-criteria If a first application is denied:  Read carefully the committee’s comments and expert reports, share them with the Grants officer  Identify the weaknesses that require your attention.  Choose the perfect time to come back depending on your eligibility status and address issues in order of importance

13. 13 Evaluation of applications (New Researchers) Evaluation criteria (Application ~Operating grant of 20,000$/year for two years): Quality of the researcher (40%) – 3 indicators Quality of the research project (40%) – 4 indicators Complementarity and integration of the researcher within the research environment (20%) – 5 indicators Evaluation criteria (Equipment 15,000$ to 50,000$):Tip: Request it! Relevance Complementarity of equipment requested and others requested or obtained from other funding agencies Availability of similar equipment Importance of equipment in helping candidae to become established Amount of time the equipment will be use

14. 14 Evaluation of applications (New Researchers) 1. Quality of the researcher (40%) Competence for the research project:  acquired competence and diversified training  in-breeding not well accepted Scientific achievements :  grants awarded (peer reviewed)  publications (number and quality of the journal)  conference proceedings (high rated conference) Innovations within industry or a research laboratory, outside the academic community, where applicable Time (potentially) dedicated to students supervision is taken into account

15. 15 Evaluation of applications (New Researchers) 2. Quality of the research project (40%) Contribution to advancement of knowledge in one field or more or to the resolution of social, economic or industrial problems or issues Quality of the theoretical approach and clarity of objectives Precision and relevance of methodology and feasability of timetable Originality of the research project

16. 16 Evaluation of applications (New Researchers) 3. Complementarity and integration in the research environment (20%) Research environment that leads to possible collaborations with colleagues and student supervision Presence of other researchers in complementary fields (role and value-added contribution) Availability of research infrastructures Opportunities for national and international collaborations (evolving or established) Support from the university in terms of release from teaching, startup funds, etc...

17. 17 Evaluation of applications (New Researchers) 4. Request for Equipment Complementarity with other equipment obtained or requested from other agencies (CFI, NSERC, etc…) Availability of similar equipment at the university or in the region Importance in helping the candidate become established Amount of time the equipment will be used

18. 18 Evaluation of applications (Team grant) Criteria and indicators 1.Scientific quality of the research project(3 indicators) 2.Budget justification (2 indicators) 3.Research projects impacts (6 indicators) 4. Scientific quality of the team members(3 indicators) 5.Complementarity of the team members (3 indicators) 6.Quality of the training environment (4 indicatosrs)