Application assessment

Access to grants of sea time on research vessel (RV) Investigator offers a valuable but limited resource, and the Granted Voyage Program represents a significant investment of funding by the Australian Government. Researcher demand for grants of sea time consistently exceeds availability.

All research delivered by the Marine National Facility (MNF) is expected to be of the highest research quality and offer the greatest national benefit.

The advice below is made available to applicants to consider when applying for grants of sea time. It includes the full list of Primary Application questions with guidance for each Stream, as well as information on how each question will be assessed.

Download: Guidance for Primary applicants - Meeting the Assessment Criteria [pdf · 1mb]

Research Quality

The merit principle of Research Quality (RQ) has four separate criteria that need to be addressed by applicants:

• Research Rationale
• Research Rigour
• Research Flexibility
• Research Capability

To be supported, research should have a robust disciplinary rationale, clear and appropriate objectives, sound methods, demonstrable feasibility, the prospect of informative results and be being delivered by researchers with the appropriate expertise.  

Research Benefit

The merit principle of Research Benefit (RB) has four separate criteria that need to be addressed by applicants:

• Research Benefit
• Research Outputs
• Path to Benefit
• Capacity to Deliver Benefit

To be supported, research should align with national interests, be likely to deliver upon national needs, have a path to impact and the right team to deliver benefit.

Assessment criteria 

Applicants will be asked to complete two questions against each of the merit criteria. The questions are designed to allow assessment of proposals against the specific attributes of research quality and research benefit.

Research Quality (RQ)

Assessment of the Research Quality will be conducted by the MNF Research Advisory Committee (RAC).

All supported research should have a robust disciplinary rationale, clear and appropriate objectives, sound methods, demonstrable feasibility, the prospect of informative results, and be being done by people with appropriate expertise. 

1. Research Rationale

RQ1A - Scientific Rationale:  Explain the scientific reasons for doing this research.

In answering this question, you should:

• Explain the scientific reasons for doing this research by clearly outlining the context in which your project will be conducted.
• Demonstrate the proposed research is well-grounded in the theory and practice of relevant disciplinary and/or multi-disciplinary fields.
• Detail how the proposed work clearly links to the motivation of the stream applied for.

RQ1B - Research Questions:  State the research objectives and explain their relevance to the Stream strategy. 

In answering this question, you should:

• Clearly identify your objective – a statement of your objective/hypotheses as your opening sentence is an excellent start
• Explain how the research objective and questions arise from the rationale for the project.
• Outline how your project aligns with the chosen stream.

2. Research Rigour

RQ2A – Research Design:  Describe the research approach, including sampling, experimental programmes and proposed analyses, that is robust and sufficient to meet project objectives.

In answering this question, you should:

• Outline your approach to designing the sampling or experimental program and planned analyses ensuring you differentiate activities that will be undertaken at sea, pre and/or post voyage.
• Demonstrate how the design of the proposed research is consistent with current best practice, robust and appropriate and sufficient to meet the project objectives. 

RQ2B – Methods:  Describe the methods, whether well-established or innovative, that are fit-for-purpose and appropriate for the objectives of the work. 

In answering this question, you should make sure they: 

• Provide detail around the research methods proposed, demonstrating that, whether well-established or innovative, they are fit-for-purpose and appropriate for the objectives of the work. 
• Demonstrate that you have considered the most efficient and effective methods to collecting data and/or samples.
• Where appropriate, separate activities that will be undertaken at sea, pre or post voyage.
• Clearly indicate if any of the methods proposed are developmental or innovative and describe how potential risks of using such cutting-edge methods will be mitigated.

3. Research Feasibility

RQ3A – Voyage:  Provide a plan for voyage work, including pre-voyage activities, that is efficient and feasible with the facilities, funding and sea-time available.

Note: voyage work should be well aligned with relevant information provided in the Logistics Section of this Application Form, including with respect to the scientific instrument and equipment to be deployed.

In answering this question, you should: 

• Include a preliminary voyage plan that has enough detail to justify the efficient use of the resources involved and to demonstrate that the project proposed can be completed on time.
• Demonstrate that you have considered risks and limitations and have factored these in your plan.
• Provide evidence, if relevant, of a plan to obtain funding to support voyage related expenses, including transportation of gear, samples and personnel.

RQ3B – Post-voyage work and research outputs:  Outline your post-voyage plan of work, including lab-work, data/sample processing and the research outputs that will result from your analyses.

Note: details of samples and data management plans are to be provided in the Compliance with MNF Policies Section of the Application Form.

In answering this question, you should:

• Provide confirmation of appropriate data and sample management plans (ensuring alignment with the relevant CSIRO policy).
• Articulate the proposed research outputs and explain their appropriateness for the research field.
• Demonstrate support has been secured from institutions external to the proposal but required for completion of post-voyage work and outputs.
• Provide evidence, if relevant, of a plan to obtain funding to support post-voyage work, including production and dissemination of research outputs.

4. Research Capability

RQ4A – Team Capability (Research):  Demonstrate that the research team has the essential capability and experience to complete the proposed work, both during and following the voyage.

Note: details of research track record and publication output will be assessed relative to opportunity.

In answering this question, you should:

• Ensure answers focus on capability relating to research quality - capability in delivering impact is addressed under RB4 Team Capability (Benefit Delivery)
• Describe how the team has the disciplinary and professional capabilities required to successfully deliver the research work proposed.
• Provide evidence of research capability and research delivery for each team member (relative to opportunity).
• Using the template provided, attach an up-to-date CV for the voyage leader and PIs and if possible, for team members. The CV template can be found on the MAPS home Help & Documentation tab.
• Confirm that sufficient time commitment has been made by team members to complete research objectives, both during and post noyage.

RQ4B – Leadership:  Demonstrate the research team includes appropriate leadership both on land and at sea.

Note: Evidence of leadership will be assessed relative to opportunity.

In answering this question, you should:

• Provide evidence of previous voyage leadership experience or clearly articulate how leadership support and mentoring will be provided for less-experienced voyage leaders and PIs.
• Provide clear evidence of how the project leader(s) will ensure successful delivery of the proposed outcomes, both during the voyage and the delivery of the research outputs.
• Explain how the project leader(s) propose to engage with the broad range of researchers.

Research Benefit (RB)

Assessment of the Research Benefit will be conducted by the MNF National Benefit Advisory Committee (NBAC).

All supported research should also align with national interests, be likely to deliver upon national needs, have a path to impact and the right team to deliver benefit to justify investment of MNF resources.

1. Benefit Rationale

RB1A – National interest and user needs:  Provide the rationale for the project in terms of national interest and user needs.

In answering this question, you should: 

• Explain the national relevance of the proposed research.
• Demonstrate linkages to an identified need and identify the policy, regulation, innovation or industry where possible.
• Demonstrate a sound understanding of the needthat the proposed research will address.

RB1B - Benefit objectives:  State the project benefit objectives and explain how they align with the needs of end-users.

In answering this question, you should:

• Clearly state the objectives of the research in the context of the benefits to be delivered.
• Identify the stakeholders for the research—including next- and end- users.
• Explain how the proposed research addresses an end-user need and/or benefit to the nation drawing direct links between your project’s objectives and the need.

2. Benefit Outputs

RB2A – Alignment:   Describe the benefit outputs and justify them in the context of their alignment to the identified needs.

In answering this question, you should:

• Describe the proposed outputs and articulate how these are matched to national interests and/or to meet end-user demand.
• Demonstrate that the outputs will be fit-for-purpose for adoption by the expected next- or end-users.
• Include any evidence of co-design with next- or end-users.

RB2B – Delivery Plan:  Outline your benefit delivery plan in the context of your research project timeframe and funding constraints.

In answering this question, you should:

• Provide a plan (including outputs format and delivery mode and timetable) for delivering the intended benefits within available time and resources.
• Explain how you have assessed users’ needs and constraints and factored these in the design of the delivery plan.
• Include any commitment/plans from the next- or end-users to utilise the delivered outcomes.
• Provide evidence that adequate resources are available to deliver the proposed benefits.

3. Path to Benefit

RB3A – Engagement and Adoption:  Describe key engagement activities for promoting and assisting adoption of project outputs.

In answering this question, you should:

• Describe how next- and end-users and other relevant stakeholders have been engaged during your project design and how they will be engaged at critical points of the project.
• Demonstrate how the planned outputs will be applied to effect change in the relevant operational domain.
• Provide evidence of commitments from next- and end-users to adopt the delivered outcomes.
• Provide evidence that the end-users endorse your approach and delivery plan.

RB3B – Evaluation of Performance:  Describe how you will evaluate your effectiveness in delivering the intended benefit.

In answering this question, you should:

• Demonstrate that consideration has been given to what effective delivery will look like, based on understanding of the pathway from research outputs to user benefit to impact.
• Articulate any performance measures they intend to use to evaluate the success of their project in delivering the stated benefits.
• Explain how they plan to disseminate information about the impact of their research.

4. Delivery Capability and Education Opportunities

RB4A – Team Capability (Benefit Delivery):  Provide evidence that the project team includes people with demonstrated capability to deliver benefits effectively to end-users.

Note: capabilities will be assessed relative to opportunity.

In answering this question, you should:

• Provide evidence (e.g. through publications, products, testimonials) that the research team has the capabilities and capacity to engage effectively with next- and/or end-users to deliver benefit (applicable to Early Career Researchers) or previously delivered outputs of demonstrable utility to next- and/or end-users in appropriate forms (applicable to senior researchers).
• Demonstrate that the team has the experience and capability required to successfully deliver the intended benefits, including team member responsibilities for delivery (e.g. who will have leadership of delivering outputs or products to end-users). Output delivery can be led by researchers with little relevant experience provided there is a robust strategy for them to be mentored by others with a sound track-record of end-user engagement.
• Ensure your answers remain focussed on capacity to deliver benefit. Information relating to research capability should be included in answers to the Research Quality questions 4a and 4b.

RB4B – Education and Training Opportunities:  Outline the education, training and capacity building opportunities and explain how these contribute strategically to the objectives of the Stream.

In answering this question, you should:

• Describe education, training and/or capacity building activities included in the project, either at sea, prior or post voyage.
• Provide evidence of targeted capacity building, training and education opportunities that have been clearly linked to the research objectives and field work plan.
• Explain the benefits of research training and education opportunities of the team’s research program with respect to national priorities or next- and/or end-user needs or the wider marine community.

Assessment process

Research Advisory Committee

The Research Advisory Committee (RAC) assesses your application and advises the MNF Steering Committee on matters relating to your proposal’s alignment with Research Quality.

RAC membership is comprised of marine research experts from diverse backgrounds.

Further information about the RAC’s role, membership and Terms of Reference.

National Benefit Advisory Committee

The National Benefit Advisory Committee (NBAC) assesses your application and advises the MNF Steering Committee on matters relating to your proposal’s alignment with Research Benefit.

NBAC membership is comprised of user groups including government, industry and research institutes from diverse backgrounds. Committee members may seek external opinion and review as part of their assessment process.

Further information about the NBAC’s role, membership and Terms of Reference.

Independent Expert Assessors

All applications will be independently reviewed by up to 4 national and international assessors.

Assessor(s) will be sourced from the national and international expert pool for the applicant’s discipline and asked to evaluate your responses to the Research Quality criteria.

Operational and scheduling feasibility

The MNF Operations Team assess each proposal for both logistic and scheduling feasibility.

Taking into account seasonal, regional, equipment and/or personnel, MNF will advise the MNF Steering Committee of the overall feasibility of each proposal.

This information does not impact the proposal’s score, rather informs the MNF SC’s final decision as to whether a meritorious proposal is feasible with a voyage schedule. 

MNF Steering Committee

The MNF Steering Committee (MNF SC) assists the CSIRO Board to fulfil its governance responsibilities by providing high level advice on the ongoing delivery of ocean research capabilities for the nation.

Recommendations and scores from RAC and NBAC are compiled and provided to the MNF SC for consideration in parallel with MNF operational and scheduling feasibility reports.

A proposed voyage schedule will be complied into a recommendation to the MNF Director.

Further information about the MNF SC, including delineation of its role, membership, Charter and Terms of Reference.

MNF Director

The MNF Director will consider the MNF SC recommendation, including operational feasibility and scheduling constraints, and the make the final decision on the application’s outcome:

>> Sea time granted

If the application is successful, the applicant will be notified and provided with an offer of sea time and formal agreement.

>> Sea time not granted

If the application is unsuccessful, the applicant will be notified and provided with feedback.