Serial failures barred from further bidding for grants

In view of the EPSRC's abysmally low success rate for research grant applications and the fact that in collaborative multi-University grant applications all applicants are classed as "Principal Investigators" this new post-dated imposition of regulations barring applicants whose applications have come low down on a few occasions will debar some of our best research talents from applying for funding from virtually the only source available to them. The rule about no resubmissions of failed applications is also totally arbitrary and bureaucratic. Referees are chosen from a very broad variety of backgrounds and often give negative comments on applications in areas which may not be their main speciality or which do not coincide with their particular approach to a subject. A resubmission judged by a different set of referee's may lead to a more favourable outcome.

This article uses the expression "low quality proposals", which is rather misleading. In the current highly competitive environment, it is possible to have a proposal ranked as either very good or outstanding by three of four peer reviewers, and still end up in the bottom half of a panel, so in fact many of the proposals in the bottom half of a panel describe truly excellent research projects. For EPSRC to dismiss them as low quality shows a lack of understanding of the problem. Quite simply, there are too many excellent researchers chasing too little funding. The solution is MORE MONEY. The government has managed to find billions to bail out the banks. The extra money needed to fund science at a level which would keep the UK on the international stage is a drop in the ocean in comparison.

As I understand the arguement, it is intended that the dual criteria of a certain number of proposals in the bottom half of a panel list AND a personal success rate of less than 25% should result in only a comparatively small proportion of people being given the 12-month suspension. The idea is that people applying to EPSRC make fewer applications per year (and therefore jeopardising your "success rate" criterion less), and carry out more "internal" peer review at their university before submitting to EPSRC. If this results in less proposals to peer review each year, then I support it, even if I think it may be slightly disingenuous to label it as "protecting peer review". Of course, we would like EPSRC to have more money to fund UK science, but I think there is some merit in preventing people constantly flooding the grants system.

Rich C - having a quota for an individual for grant submissions is one thing, putting people onto a list of "failure" is quite another. Who knows the ramifications for people who end up on this blacklist - either in their own institution or in terms of wider employability in the sector? A quota system for applications won't be supported by the "big boys" because they will see this a route of potentially sharing the pot out across a wider group of individuals over time. That would never do, now would it!!? Proposals can finish in the bottom tier at a panel for many reasons - it doesn't automatically follow that a proposal ranked last is bad science does it! The problem is the pot is too small, its not a problem of poor quality research. This is also a method for EPSRC to improve its success rate with its political masters.

There are only two ways to improve success rates: more money for science or managing the overall volume of applications. Of course we should call for more money for science, but in the meantime it is important we get success rates for all disciplines above 20% (because peer review is not effective if they fall much below this level) by improving the quality of peer review and reducing the overall burden on the peer review system. EPSRC are taking a brave step in doing this but one which will ultimately benefit UK science. Moreover, a temporary exclusion of 12 months for a researcher to get some advice and help in ensuring the next proposal they submit is a very high quality one is just not blacklisting and it certainly is not similar to identifying someone as a sex offender. Calm down.

I'm having a bit of trouble with the statistics being quoted by EPSRC in their response to the THE article (front page of their web site)... They say that it will affect "5% of applicants and 10% of applications" but I cannot see how the numbers can be so low. Perhaps someone can point out my error in the following? • For every panel round that is held, more than half of the applicants will fall into the category “bottom half of a funding prioritization list or rejected before panel”. For example, if 20% are rejected before panel then 60% in total would fall into the above category (of 100 submitted, 20 rejected before panel plus 40 in the bottom half of the remaining list). If I were to submit 3 proposals within a two year period then a crude probability calculation tells me that my chance of being excluded in this way is over 20%.

This is another example of the type of debate which takes place between those who wield power and those who have to comply. The latter group raise detailed arguments, eg the demonstrable arbitrariness of peer review, whilst the the former group regrettably refuse to get into the minutiæ and make, quite often erroneous and sweeping statements ("its either this option or then we do that"). The EPSRC executive would do well to remember the lesson of the STFC debacle. Enough of a stink was kicked up about that poorly managed orgnanisation which failed to engage with the community, that a Parliamentary inquiry eventually took place, which led to a public criticism of the executive.

It seems pretty clear that the step is basically implemented to get the official success rates up - that's all. I can understand this, but that will just lead to more money to those who have, the typical accumulation effect, nothing which would be good for science in general. I am not sure whether I should cry, or just turn away from the system, or become cynic and play the bad rules with more intelligence. Why can our community not be more creative to generate funding for research - why do we have to fight harder for less all the time? The game is not rational - only human. We need to get more involved in politics, economy, society and media to make clear that our society needs more science, more applications, more intelligence paired with solidarity and engagement to solve the deep problems which our world faces today on various levels!

While the policy has certainly been announced in a rather dramatic and apparently inflexible way (rumours I hear from behind the scenes that there will be more room for flexibility than is apparent on the surface) I actually don't think it's as extreme as people think. What it amounts to is "unless you're reasonably successful only apply once per year as PI". If you do that, this policy can never hurt you. How many of us really have time to write more than one well thought-out EPSRC grant application a year?

Steve LInton - EPSRC estimate that this policy will affect 200 - 250 people. Many believe that this is an underestimate. Remember that the blacklisting process is being introduced "retrospectively". Two years ago we had no idea that EPSRC were going to introduce this! Moreover, those academics who are blacklisted will have their names forwarded to University management/Head of School. As Steve A points out above this is deeply unfair, particularly when EPSRC's criteria for exclusion do not correlate well with the quality of an applicant's proposal. It is this inherent unfairness that has frustrated so many people (over 1300 have now signed the ePetition) - it's just not cricket! For once, could we stop trying to "play the game" and aim to force a change of RCUK's procedures if they're flawed?

The purpose, as I understand it, of the blacklisting is to reduce the number of applications that have to be processed by EPSRC. The number that they plan to reduce in this way hardly makes much difference to the total number of applications that they have been in the habit of receiving, so in that sense it does not do what they want. Of course, it may be that the total number of applications will go down significantly because some will be afraid even to attempt in case they are put on the list. This is dictat by fear! If it doesn't deter a large number of applicants, then what is the point? All they achieve is to get everyone's backs up for very little gain. And that doesn't even address the moral question of blacklisting in the first place. Just imagine what it would feel like to be the only person in a department to be sent for mentoring in the event of finding oneself on the list, and quite possibly for non-scientific reasons. The other matter of not allowing resubmissions is plain potty. Just because one does not achieve a proposal funded doesn't mean that the work is not worth doing. I have one funded project right now that was rejected (the first time for non-scientific reasons: it was ranked 4-5th by the panel but EPSRC did not have enough money that round) several times before but was finally funded last year. I am sure most of us have endured this kind of lottery in funding. The procedures that EPSRC are bringing in (under the laughable heading "New measures to IMPROVE peer review" are half-baked and only act to make more work for applicants.

This policy is malicious. EPSRC could easily achieve the desired result by simply restricting the number of applications per academic, as PI, to some suitable number. Perhaps a bit harsh, but is doesn't lead to stigmatisation of individuals. Lets hope the petition has some effect.

Even if this EPSRC policy was acceptable from an ethical perspective, it would still be predicated on the fact that the reviewing process is fair, professional and rational. And that remains to be demonstrated (to put things mildly). Hence, either the EPSRC should blacklist reviewers producing sub-standard reviews (opinions not seriously grounded on the reviewer's track record, multiple factual inaccuracies ...), or the applicants should make greater use of the EPSRC peer reviewing complaint policy. In this way, EPSRC will reduce its applications by 20% and increase the number of complaints it receives by 2000% since those applying will fight to keep a clean 'blacklist' track record.