Category: Tips&Tricks

How to add your Mendeley Advisor certification to your LinkedIn profile

kristinblye

A LinkedIn profile is popular way to organize and showcase your education and career experience. This is also a great platform to add any licenses or certificates you achieve, like your Mendeley Advisor status.  

In this quick guide, we’ll help you add your Mendeley Advisor certification and badge to your LinkedIn profile.

First things first

Please make sure you have successfully registered as a Mendeley Advisor by visiting our Mendeley Advisor Community page, clicking “Register as an Advisor” and filling out the form.

Get started

  1. Sign into LinkedIn with your existing account, or if you are new to LinkedIn, create a new account for free
  2. Navigate to your profile and scroll down to the Licenses & certifications section
  3. Click the “+” icon to the right to add a new entry

In the new window, enter in your details:

  • Name = Mendeley Advisor
  • Issuing Organization = Mendeley (choose the first Mendeley result with the red logo that auto-populates)
  • Check the box next to “This credential does not expire”
  • Enter in the month and year you achieved your certification (this can be an estimate if you don’t know your exact date)
  • Leave credential ID blank
  • Credential URL = https://www.mendeley.com/advisor-community
  • Click “save”

And you’re all set. Now your Mendeley Advisor certification is proudly displayed on your LinkedIn profile for all to see. Congratulations!

The 2020 vision of you

sallyransom

How to stand out with a Mendeley profile

Making sure that potential collaborators, funders, employers and institutional leaders can find and see the real you is key to a successful research career.

With a Mendeley profile you can easily present a highly visible and accurate picture of who you are as a researcher. This includes showcasing your research objectives, the impact of your work, and other accomplishments alongside your publications and additional citation metrics. Telling the complete story of you and your research in one place is a great way to stand out.

Sign up for a Mendeley profile

Here are four easy ways you can use your Mendeley profile to showcase your achievements and impact:

1. Go beyond the metrics.Profile image (5)
Stand out to funders, peers, employers and institutional leaders by adding a clear personal mission statement, the outcome or societal impact of a recent project in your “About” description. Top tip: making this description at least 200 words increases the findability of your profile in searches.

2. Your best interests at heart.
Make it easy for potential collaborators with similar interests to find you by regularly updating the clickable, searchable “Research interests” keywords.

3. Put a face to a name.
Help others relate to the real person behind the facts. Adding a profile picture improves the impact of your profile.

Profile image (6)4. Better connected.
Keep your publications and all associated metrics up to date, and make your profile a one-stop place where others can see all the information about the societal, academic and collegial impact of your work. Simply connect your Mendeley profile to your Scopus Author Profile to autofill your “Publications” and “Impact” sections.

It’s now also easier for visitors to your profile to quickly access your research via the new “View PDF” button, which appears alongside each available publication in your profile and links straight through to the full article.

These are just some of the ways Mendeley profiles have recently been improved to help you stand out in an increasingly competitive world. Even if you’ve had a Mendeley profile for years, check out the new look – you’re bound to see something you want to use to present the right 2020 vision of you.

View your Mendeley profile

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Mendeley profiles are just one of the ways in which Mendeley supports you in your research career. Find out what more it can help you do – from managing references, to staying up to date with the latest research, to finding funding opportunities – by visiting mendeley.com

Would you like to become a certified peer reviewer?

Rachel Brennesholtz

 

The process of peer reviewing is associated with certain challenges. Editors often struggle with finding reviewers for their next articles. Reviewers want to demonstrate their expertise but have no way of getting noticed. It happens that reviewers decline requests due to lack of familiarity with the subject matter, or because they think they are not competent and experienced enough to review someone else’s work. In the mission of overcoming these challenges, potential reviewers can gain ground skills on peer reviewing by participating in The Certified Peer Review course developed by Elsevier Researcher Academy. Becoming a certified peer reviewer will allow potential reviewers to publicly demonstrate their expertise as referees and contribute to the integrity of academic.

What is happening?

For the past few months, the Elsevier Researcher Academy team was working on a new crash course. The course has been specifically designed to give those who have not yet reviewed – or who feel they would like additional training in this area – the skills and confidence to accept a request to review. The course content is delivered via directed self-learning in the form of webinars, podcasts and questionnaires and can be tackled at the desired pace of the participant. Completion is recognised by a certificate. We hope that the course will help to tackle the reviewer shortage issue that so many of you and your peers face.

Why is this important?

The integrity of scholarly communications depends heavily on the peer reviewing process. 82% academics agreed “without peer review there is no control in scientific communication” and 74% agreed that reviewing significantly raises the quality of published papers (full report here). Therefore, it is crucial for science to expand the reviewer pool and to ensure that proper training is received for producing trustworthy and high-quality peer reviews.

Researchers agree that there is a general ”lack of guidance about how to perform a good review, and reviewers are expected to ‘learn on the job’” (read more here).  Therefore, 77% of reviewers would be interested in receiving specific peer reviewing training. Those who are interested are early researchers (with experience of 5 years and less) but also established career researchers.

What to expect?

The course is divided into 4 major sections.  Each section features complex subthemes to assure that every aspect of the procedure is covered, establishing skills and confidence in the process.

When is it happening?

The course will launch during Peer Review Week on 17th September. Register for free via this link: https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/certified-peer-reviewer-course/introduction-certified-peer-reviewer-course

Peer review week is a global event, organized to emphasize the central role peer review plays in scholarly communication. On 16-20 September 2019, individuals, institutions and organizations devoted to the mission of maintaining a high quality of science participate in this event to share research, highlight the latest innovation and advance best practices.

Wellcome Trust Grant Funding: Applying for Investigator Awards

contentstrategymedia

Introduction

The Wellcome Trust is an independent, global charitable organisation that funds research in medical and health-related fields. The trust’s founder, Sir Henry Wellcome, was a US-born pharmacist, who moved to the UK in 1880, aged 27. In the same year, he co-founded a successful pharmaceutical company, Burroughs Wellcome, and Company, with a colleague Silas Burroughs. After his death in 1936, Wellcome bequeathed a large fortune to advancing animal and human health, which was used to establish the Wellcome Trust.

In the most current period reported, (2016-17), the trust awarded 3,436 global grants to the value of £4.4 billion. The five most significantly funded areas include:

  • Infectious disease and immunobiology
  • Genomics, genetics, and epigenetics
  • Neuroscience and mental health
  • Development and ageing
  • Population, environment, and health

Further information on the subject areas the Wellcome Trust funds grants for are available on its science remit page.

The majority of grant funding (43%) is allocated to personal awards for investigators, fellowships and Ph.D. studentships, with the remainder going towards supporting a number of Wellcome Trust Institutes and team research. The grant funding call normally stipulates where your host organisation needs to be geographically located in order to receive funding. The majority of schemes fund the UK, Republic of Ireland and/or low and middle-income economy countries, as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

How to apply for a research grant

Funding calls for grants are listed under the Wellcome Trust’s Scheme Finder. In order to submit an application, you must be registered on the Wellcome Trust’s Grant Tracker. The application can subsequently be completed entirely online on the system. There are currently 53 schemes available – all with their individual eligibility and applicant suitability criteria that need to be followed closely. In this article, we’ll be focussing on the trust’s Investigator Awards in Science, and the key parts of the application process.

Introduction: Investigator Awards in Science

The Wellcome Trust’s Investigator Awards in Science are available for a flexible sum of up to £3 million, to cover a maximum period of seven years of research. Applications are considered three times a year, with submission deadlines in March, July, and November. Eligibility requirements include being employed in a current academic post, with your salary being covered by your host institution. Those who are imminently taking up a post can also apply, as long as they have a written guarantee of employment from a host institution. If successful, they can take up the grant upon starting their post. If you have any queries about eligibility or other criteria, it’s advisable to contact the Wellcome Trust’s information officers via the online contact form before you start your application.

Eligibility

Researchers can apply for an Investigator Award at any stage of their career, from those at an early stage to those who are experienced senior researchers. Less experienced candidates are expected to demonstrate that they have an outstanding research record, relative to their career stage. The latter can include having high-impact publications, patents and having gained prior research grant funding. In addition, early career researchers should show they are on the way to establishing a world-leading reputation in their research area. Joint applicants are also welcomed, where the collaboration is seen to enhance the scope and quality of the project. Note that Wellcome Trust grants do not cover applicant salaries, only the cost of the research proposed.

Investigator Awards require a full grant application to be completed on the grant tracker system from the outset, a sample PDF of which is available on their site. This is in contrast to some of the other grant schemes offered, 14 of which require you to submit a shorter, preliminary application in the first instance, as an initial screen for reviewers. Examples for the latter include the Research Career Re-entry Fellowships and Sir Henry Dale Fellowships.

Application – Researcher career information

The application for the Investigator Award calls for you to complete your education and career history, including what you deem to be your most important research-related career contributions. Your research output, with up to twenty of the most relevant achievements, should also be stated. Further information in this section includes your peer-reviewed publications, other grants you have obtained, individuals you’ve trained and your research history over the past five years. Reviewers will be looking for an exceptional track record in the field of your grant application.

Research proposal and vision

Your research proposal requires two summaries, one for experts and an additional lay summary, that can be easily grasped by lay scientists, working in adjacent fields.  Bear in mind that the internal reviewing panel can contain a mix of specialists and non-specialists from your broader field, so clarity and stating the potential for impact is the key.

Following on from your research summary, you need to describe your research vision in less than three thousand words. The latter should encompass the key research questions you are seeking to answer and why, with a clear plan of how you will achieve this. A coherent outline of the research to be conducted should be provided, without going into the detailed methodology. It’s important to highlight any potential problems you envisage that may arise and more importantly, how you will deal with them.

The research vision should communicate how the project will result in significant advances in research in your field. Reviewers will be looking for ground-breaking and transformative research here. You can add up to 2 A4 pages of figures and data, to support your research vision.

Support from your host organisation

A supporting statement from your host organisation is needed for all applications. It should detail why your institution thinks you deserve the Investigator Award and furthermore, how your proposal fits with their aims and priorities. It should also outline how the research institute will support you in achieving the aims of your project. The latter could include ring-fencing resources, providing financial support or other relevant technical assistance. Information with regard to your employment contract should also be included.

Details of your research group

The application requires that you include all details of any research staff that have reported to you over the past two years, and anticipated staff to be supervised for the duration of the grant if funded. This can include Ph.D. students, research assistants, postdoctoral researchers and any other staff, even if their time is split between other research groups.

Costs and budgetary justification

A detailed costing for your project with budgetary justification is an essential part of the application. Reviewers will examine how this section is completed closely, and be seeking good value for money in terms of the research output, versus the amount of funding requested. As such, full justification of all the resources you are requesting, and their relevance to the project is needed. You’ll need to separate all high-level costs out as headings, examples include — equipment, salaries/stipends, materials and consumables, animals and associated costings, and provide clear justification for each one.

Conflicts of interest and reviewer requests

Applicants need to declare any potential conflicts of interest that might arise as a result of the funded research project. Examples would include an applicant holding a consultancy in a commercial firm that would be interested in the research outcome, or an intellectual property right infringement that could arise.

Whilst you can’t formally request who should be included in the peer-review panel that assesses your application, suggestions can be made for who you would like to be included or excluded. These recommendations should be entered in the section entitled ‘confidential information,’ alongside a brief rationale.

Application assessment and review

The online grant submission process allows for you to create a PDF version of your application at any point during completion. It’s advisable to create this and use it to circulate amongst research colleagues for feedback and make corrections before you submit formally.

Once your proposal has been sent, it will be passed to the appropriate internal review group. Reviewers will discuss the merits and weaknesses of each application. They apply a scoring system to rank applications according to whether they should definitely go through, are possibly appropriate or should be rejected.

Those who make it past the first stage of review have their applications sent to external expert peer-reviewers for feedback. Applicants are then invited to interview by a selection panel, which requires the preparation of a short ten-minute powerpoint presentation. Interviews usually take place in the Wellcome Trust’s Head Offices in London. Applicants will receive anonymised comments from the peer-review panel in advance of their interview, which should help give a clear indication of questions that may arise.

Note that the interview panel may comprise a mix of experts in your field and non-experts in adjacent fields. They will use the feedback provided by external expert reviewers for guidance. Be sure to prepare by taking the opportunity to go through a mock interview with research colleagues in advance. Especially any that have been successful with grant funding in the past, and are from adjacent scientific fields.

Successful Applications

If you’re successful, you’ll be called by The Wellcome Trust who will discuss the terms of your funding package. Current and former grant holders for the trusts Investigator Awards in Science can be viewed here

Good luck with your application!

Insights into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) grant research funding

Christian DeFeo

NASA funding can help propel research

Looking for NASA Research Funding? Try Mendeley Funding!

 

by Seema Sharma

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was founded in 1958, to help accelerate the existing efforts for aerospace research and development in the United States. Now in its 60th anniversary year, NASA offers a wide range of funding opportunities to researchers in aeronautics, human space flight research, biological systems in space, atmospheric sciences (including climate change), physical sciences, robotics and astrophysics.

The vast majority of grants are available through specific calls on the NASA solicitation and proposal integrated review and evaluation system (NSPIRES). All open calls, (known as solicitations), are available to view on the NSPIRES site and also posted on grants.gov. Before being eligible to submit a completed proposal, you need to ensure that you are affiliated with an organisation that is already registered on the system. Further information on registration can be found here. NASA accepts a few unsolicited grant proposals every year if they are of close relevance to their strategic plan. Interested applicants are required to follow the guidance for unsolicited proposals.

Researchers can submit their application in response to calls through either the NSPIRES site or grants.gov platform. It must be noted, however, that it is common to provide a notice of intention (NOI) before submitting a proposal, and this must be done via NSPIRES. General guidelines for submitting a grant proposal in response to a NASA funding announcement (FA) can be found in their guidebook.

Its crucial to ensure that you pay close attention to the deadlines, eligibility criteria, program goals, objectives, funding restrictions and submission information that are included in the FA. All deadlines for the FA must be adhered too, as well as the requested formats, (page length, font, spacing), for submission. FA’s include the details of your assigned program officer, who serves as a point of contact for the submission process.

Your proposal should demonstrate that you have exceptional knowledge of research to date and the key publications in the area of your proposed project. The impact of your project should be detailed with clear information on how it will extend or advance current understanding. Pay specific attention to writing a detailed and accurate budget and justification of expenditure for your project, this should include procurements needed for the project. Salaries and staff costs are usually included in the cover pages. A detailed budget for all other costs, excluding staff and associated overheads, need to be included in the main proposal document. A total budget document is also included to summarise all costs. A lack of information on budgets in submitted proposals is currently recognised by NASA as being the number one reason for grant rejection.

All grant applications received are subject to full peer review. The review process at NASA includes and administrative, technical and financial assessment. The technical assessment is undertaken by qualified peers of those submitting the proposal who have advanced knowledge in the field. They may not necessarily be specialists, so its important that your proposal is written with clarity and ease of understanding. NASA often recruits those previously successfully funded with grants as reviewers. The reviewal process takes between 150 days and 220 days and is subject to the funds being approved by the Federal budget process.

NASA has a specific postdoctoral program, and there are currently over 650 opportunities listed on its dedicated program pages. Postdoc opportunities are available to those who are within five years of having completed their doctorates. There are opportunities for both US and non-US citizens and annual application deadlines are March 1, July 1 and November 1. After the first year as a postdoctoral fellow, scientists interested in management may apply to the postdoctoral management program at NASA headquarters.

All research is primarily conducted at NASA’s ten research centres and affiliated university laboratories across the United States. There are four mission directorates at NASA including the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, the Space Technology Mission Directorate, the Science Directorate and the Aeronautics Research Directorate. Each directorate encompasses a number of research divisions with specified programs for awarding grants.

In a separate initiative, NASA’s office of education also issues funding in the form of internships, fellowships and scholarships. The office of education actively encourage those underrepresented in STEM careers, including women, minorities and individuals with disabilities to apply. The majority of current programs are aimed at undergraduate level students. Full details of current opportunities for the latter are available separately to research grants, on these relevant pages.

Research Opportunities by NASA Directorates

The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate

The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate includes the division of Space Life and Physical Sciences Research and Applications (SLPSRA). The latter was founded in 2011.The SLPSRA administers a Human Research Program – researching the specific effects on human health and performance of spaceflight, a Space Biology program – looking at the effect of spaceflight and zero gravity on biological systems as a whole, and a Physical Sciences program – researching the effect of spaceflight on physical systems. The International Space Station is an integral part of conducting research in the latter fields.

Further information on NASA’s life sciences research, including a research roadmap can be found in their Life Sciences Data Archive .Note that there are some NASA funded virtual institutes including the Translational Research Institute for Space Health (TRI for Space Health), and National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) that conduct research focussing on maintaining astronaut health for NASA.

The Physical Sciences research program covers six disciplines including biophysics, combustion science, complex fluids, fluid physics, fundamental physics and materials science. It has two elements to the research covered, the first being exploring the effects of weightlessness on physical systems, and the other researching space exploration technologies, for example power generation, environmental monitoring and space propulsion.

An online database of all research projects from 2004 supported by the SLPSRA are available to search and view in a dedicated taskbook here.

Space Technology Mission Directorate

NASA’s second directorate – the Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), focusses, as its name suggests, on high-technology development to enable NASA’s current and future space missions. There are a number of ways it funds and collaborates with partners, including research grants and industry partnerships. More detailed background can be found on the STMD Directorate pages..

Research grants are specifically funded for four different areas. The first is as Space Technology Research Fellowships (NSTRF) to conduct Masters or Doctoral Research at one of NASA’s ten centres or affiliated university laboratories in the US. To qualify, candidates must be graduates with permanent residency in the US. There were 65 fellowships awarded last year.

The second research grant area is available for Early Career Faculty.  The funding is accredited to outstanding early career researchers at US universities who are conducting space technology development of interest to NASA. Priority is given to groundbreaking, high-risk and high-pay off projects. The grant awards made are typically for $200K/year over a three year period. There were eight grants awarded last year in areas including integrated photonics sensors, microfludics sample acquisition and handling for space exploration, and cognitive communications.

A third area of funding is awarded through the STMD’s Early Stage Innovation (ESI) program. Eligible research applicants must demonstrate their invention of highly innovative and disruptive technologies at an early-stage of development. Priority is given to those that would address critical needs in NASA’s space exploration program. Successful candidates are awarded up to $500K per year for a maximum of three years. There were 14 grant awards last year in fields that spanned many topics including advanced coating systems for nuclear thrust propulsion, the extraction of water from extraterrestrial surfaces and lightweight lattice materials for space structures.

Finally, the fourth area under the STMD funds establishing new Space Technology Research Institutes, in the form of multidisciplinary research team collaborations. There were two successful awards made last year for this initiative. The first was for a new institute named The Center for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), and the second was for The Institute for Ultra-Strong Composites by Computational Design (US-COMP) 

Science Directorate

The third directorate is referred to as the Science Directorate (abbreviated to SARA). It is organised into four scientific divisions that encompass heliophysics, earth science, planetary science, and astrophysics. Interested applicants can visit specific resource pages that provide further general information for those looking for research opportunities in the Science Directorate. Funding announcements for the Directorate are available under the heading of Research Opportunities in Earth and Space Sciences (ROSES), the most up-to-date version of which is available here. Current postdoctoral opportunities covering many of the fields included in the Science directorate are also available on NASA’s Postdoctoral Program pages.

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

Aeronautics research at NASA is organised by the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). Current research strategy at the directorate is organised in six areas that have been based on the envisaged future demands of aviation and air transportation for the next 25 years. These include a transition to low-carbon propulsion systems to reduce environmental impact, enabling the safe and efficient growth in global aviation operations and the development of supersonic aircraft.

Although the majority of ARMD research is carried out at four NASA research centres: Ames Research Center and Armstrong Flight Research Center in California, Glenn Research Center in Ohio, and Langley Research Center in Virginia, there are also multi-institutional collaborations and a few industry partners across the US. At present there are no open calls listed under this directorate on NSPIRES or grants.gov. Recent completed projects can be viewed here.

Good luck with your grant application!

Useful links

NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) – https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/index.do

Guidebook for proposers responding to a NASA funding announcement – https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/proposer2017.pdf

NASA Postdoctoral Program Opportunities – https://npp.usra.edu/opportunities/

Need Funding Opportunities? Mendeley Users: visit Mendeley Funding – More Information

Scientific research is hard …so you have to enjoy it!

Christian DeFeo

Today we’re talking to Tim Donohoe, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and Editor of Tetrahedron Letters.

What are your research interests/describe a typical working day
“I research organic chemistry in the broadest sense, but am particularly interested in total synthesis and catalysis.” Tim leads a research team of 16-20 people, a mixture of graduates/undergraduates plus postdoctoral researchers. “My job is to support them and together do the best research possible.” As well as this, Tim is also responsible for teaching and has various administrative duties. What’s more, he’s also an editor for Tetrahedron Letters! 

How do you measure success in your work?
“One thing that gets my fist pumping is when we get a really nice piece of work accepted for publication. Or when a grant gets funded – we can then do more research! Another thrill is when a member of the group gets a job (especially if it’s in chemistry!).”

Do you have any particular advice for younger researchers?
“Scientific research is hard”, says Tim “…so you have to enjoy it! The opportunity to have a job you enjoy is a privilege. If you enjoy it, work at it to be best you can be. Read widely. Make sure you are good at communicating science – presentations, writing at the board and that sort of thing.”

What drove you to become an Editor?
“I was invited!” Tim started his editorial work with the journal in January 2014. 

What is the most rewarding aspect of editorial work for you and what do you find difficult about the role?
In terms of reward, Tim finds it pleasing to be able to “help get great science published”. He sees his job to help the journal and grow its reputation. He also likes helping researchers around the world. “It’s great to see a manuscript coming back with helpful referees’ comments, then see the improvements in the revised version.” What’s not so good is having to make difficult decisions. Sometimes papers are “in the middle” – which way to go? Occasionally referees’ comments are short and unhelpful to both the author and the editor – so then one’s left in a quandary. 

What professional use (if any) do you make of social media and/or scholarly collaboration tools like Mendeley?
Tim does make use of some tools. Not much social media though. Tim finds Mendeley helpful to share ideas with other editors and Elsevier staff: the group discussion aspect is useful. “At the TET conference in Budapest – we had a virtual poster symposium. You could join the [Mendeley] group and look at the science that was being presented. You could comment and interact, even from home. That was great as it gave those unable to attend a chance to participate.” Tim doesn’t use Twitter as an active user but browses journals’ feeds.

If we could build a tool/device to help you most in your career or editorial work; what would it be?
If we’re looking at a scientific demand then something that would help organic chemistry research, in particular catalytic reactions. “There’s a lot going on in a catalytic reaction. If a particular reaction doesn’t work, we don’t know why. What we need is a simple way of working out WHY: some way of interrogating unsuccessful interactions!”

Have you any particular interests in what remains of your time apart from university and editorial work?
“Family! Squash. And I go to the gym to keep fit.”

Tim was interviewed by Christopher Tancock

Don’t do whatever everyone else is doing

Christian DeFeo

Today we’re talking to Rob Field, Professor of Biological Chemistry, John Innes Centre and editor-in-chief of Carbohydrate Research.

What are your research interests/describe a typical working day

“Generally a lot of it is spent on a train somewhere!” As well as working at the John Innes Centre, Rob is active as CEO of Iceni Diagnostics, which develops diagnostic tools for examining and/or diagnosing infectious diseases e.g. influenza or the norovirus. If that wasn’t enough, Rob has also recently taken over a role as President of the chemistry-biology interface division with the Royal Society of Chemistry! Rob spends much of his time nowadays doing managerial or strategy work but was trained as a chemist and is active with his research teams.

How do you measure success in your work?

The academic markers of success are clearly important, but Rob also looks to the question of impact. For example Rob and his team got involved after anglers on the Norfolk Broads complained of finding large numbers of dead fish. Working with them – and the environment agency, Rob discovered that the issue was down to algae which had been infected by a virus. Rob’s team had similar experiences with their work on influenza so they worked out a method of tracking and neutralizing the algae as well as implanting measures to keep an eye out for reoccurrence. This was hugely important for the local community.

Do you have any particular advice for younger researchers?

“Don’t do whatever everyone else is doing” is Rob’s motto! It’s a very competitive environment, so you have to be distinctive. To Rob’s mind; there is a “growing realization that chasing the Impact Factor is not the best way to do the best science”. More important is to hit the right audience – by e.g. targeting a specific journal. At the same time, it’s important to note that there is a lot of pressure on researchers and corruption that needs to be tackled.

What drove you to become an Editor?

Rob got gradually involved with his journal as a handling editor then in time became editor-in-chief. In doing his editorial work, Rob recognizes that science is “never static” but nonetheless some traditional journals occasionally stay still. Rob is keen to ensure that Carbohydrate Research leads from the front and maintains its edge and usefulness to the community.

What is the most rewarding aspect of editorial work for you and what do you find difficult about the role?

Workflows and timings are the difficult issues for Rob. Getting c.150 emails a day makes for a huge workload! On the plus side, Rob enjoys the position of being able to determine which research progresses into the journal. Whereas he sees some journals as taking in everything – and in doing so losing focus; Carbohydrate Research maintains selectivity and thus rejects c. 2/3 of submissions.

What professional use (if any) do you make of social media and/or scholarly collaboration tools like Mendeley?

“This really depends on whom I am working with – everyone has their own pet approach.” Part of the difficulty, Rob says, is that there is no standard format or tool at the moment – even for data sharing. It can be Dropbox for one project, Mendeley for another or something from Google for the next! More and more young people are coming in though and they are even more IT savvy than those in their 30s. There is an obvious and increasing use of Twitter or Facebook to access information. One big change that Rob has observed is the shift away from Web of Science type database searches to simple Google searching. Generally, there is more and more need to share data as part of collaborative work and have access to literature as well as documents and reports. “I sit on lots of funding bodies. In the past, you would have got a suitcase of hard copy – now there is a web portal!”

If we could build a tool/device to help you most in your career or editorial work; what would it be?

For Rob, one frustration dealing with primary research papers is dealing with different formats between publishers. Therefore, access to a central bank which smoothed out formats would be great. “Some formatting is overkill”, he says.  Another thing would be more streamlined access to research papers. “The move to OA makes sense but it is nightmare to get there.” Finally, quality control is getting more and more difficult. Younger people don’t have experience to navigate the huge number and variety of journals and sources. They often take everything at face value.

Have you any particular interests in what remains of your time apart from university and editorial work?

When he’s not wearing one of his many work hats, Rob enjoys fishing, watching rugby and travel.

Rob was interviewed by Christopher Tancock

Insights into funding: Indian Department of Science and Technology

Christian DeFeo1 Comment

Indian research spending is approximately $70 billion annually.

By Seema Sharma

Looking for DST Research Funding? Try Mendeley Funding!

Introduction

In 2016, India spent 0.85% of its GDP on research and development. Although this may lag behind some of the research commitments of its Asian neighbours, (China spent 1.98% and South Korea lead the region with a significant investment of 4% of its GDP), it still represents a non-trivial funding amount of ~$70 Billion annually. In recent years, Indian Research Institutes have significantly increased their influence in global rankings for research output, with the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) now ranking 41 globally, and in the top 10 in the Asia-Pacific region [1].

DST Funding Overview

In this post, we’re focussing on funding opportunities from the Indian Department of Science and Technology (DST). The department has a multi-functional role that includes setting scientific policy, advising the government, supporting its 21 research institutions and promoting emerging areas of science and technology (S&T). Additionally, together with its subsidiary body — the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), it allocates S&T research grants within its funding criteria to undertake research at its institutions and beyond. Note, there are several other Indian governmental departments, including the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), that also support grants in scientific research fields. The full list of all departments can be found here.

The funding focus available from the DST in India falls into the following 6 broad categories: Scientific & engineering research; technology development; international S&T cooperation; S&T socio-economic programmes; technology missions division and women scientists programmes.

There initiatives and projects funded in these categories are diverse. Some examples include: the technology mission division supporting solar energy research though a dedicated Clean Energy Research Initiative (CERI); women scientists programmes providing funding for those women returning to work after career breaks; the technology development funding a new quantum computation and communication systems project.

Calls for proposals have a definitive submission deadline and those currently available can be found listed at http://www.dst.gov.in/call-for-proposals. Announcements, in the form of ongoing funding opportunities are also invited throughout the year, with no definitive deadline, and are available here. The format and requirements for funding applications differ and researchers should play close attention to the guidelines stipulated in the individual call or announcement.The DST has adopted an electronic project management system portal (e-PMS) for the online submission of research proposals. Researchers are required to register on the portal (onlinedst.gov.in) and then upload the proposal in the given format specified in the call.

Proposals will be sent to at least three peer reviewers selected by DST. Applicants can nominate three reviewers and the DST guarantees to select at least one of these, subject to ensuring there are no conflicts of interest. Applicants have an opportunity to respond to reviewers’ comments in writing. In addition, applicants may also be called to an interview before a panel to gather more information and clarity on the proposals. The expert panel may review and moderate peer review reports and seek further information based the what it presented by the applicant at interview.

DST International Collaborative Funding

As part of a focus on international cooperation, the DST has a number of joint global calls for funding, teaming up with international partners. It’s notable that many of its current calls for proposals involve collaboration with one or more countries. The DST states that in recent years its cooperation has strengthened notably with Australia, Canada, EU, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia, UK and USA.

UK-India, Germany-India, France-India and US-India collaborative calls are regularly announced. Here, research applicants are required to apply jointly from the two countries involved, and each proposal should involve one or more organisers from each country. Two funding councils will be involved, the DST and the joint partner research council.

In the UK, a number of recently funded grants have included joint collaborations between the DST with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) on projects for improving water quality through monitoring pollutants, and reducing energy demands in the built environment. Current Indo-UK joint research calls available through the Research Councils UK (RCUK) can be found here.

The DST is also involved in a UK-India Education Research Initiative (UKIERI), a bilateral governmental commitment from both countries to partner in research. They have a number of funding calls currently available, (independent to those listed by the RCUK), listed here. Equivalent bilateral research initiative centres also exist in France (Indo-French Centre for Promotion of Advanced Research), Germany (Indo-German Science & Technology Centre) and the US (Indo-US Science and Technology Forum), which are worth checking for regular funding calls.

The DST require that all international collaborative research projects proposals should emphasise the joint research effort between Indian researchers and the other participant country. Furthermore,  both applicants should clearly demonstrate the added value drawn from a collaboration with India. They also encourage the exchange of research staff, including travel funding specifically for that purpose. The Indian Lead applicant researcher must work at an institution that receives grants from the DST and have registered online at their portal.

Finally, we’ve listed a number of standard assessment criteria to help when submitting international collaborative projects with the DST, these include:

  1. Quality of proposal
  2. Importance
  3. Pathways to Impact
  4. Appropriateness of applicants (CV’s are submitted as part of this)
  5. Resources and management
  6. Fit with the call

Good luck with your application!

References

Useful Links

Need Funding Opportunities? Mendeley Users: visit Mendeley Funding – More Information

An introduction to applying for a NIH grant

Christian DeFeo

NIH funding is a major resource for medical researchers

Looking for NIH Research Funding? Try Mendeley Funding!

 

by Seema Sharma

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US, is one of the world’s largest funders of biomedical research grants. It awards funding of over $30B annually, for research that falls within its mission to understand living systems, enhance health, extend healthy lives, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. The NIH is funded by the US federal government and is made up of 27 institutions and research centres, with 24 actively offering funding grant awards. The funding criteria for each individual institution may vary from that of the NIH as a whole, so researching the institute whose grant you are applying for is crucial.

NIH grants have three types of calls to funding, including program announcements, requests for applications and parent announcements. All current funding opportunities are listed here https://grants.nih.gov/searchguide/. The first type, program announcements, are open for 3 years and usually highlight an area of focus, offering three opportunities for submitting applications a year. The second category are requests for applications (also known as RFA’s). The latter have a narrowly defined title and focus, a single submission date and a preallocated amount of funds.

Finally, if there are no available program announcements, or RFA’s available for your research project, a third type of grant called parent announcements are on offer. These allow researchers to submit speculative or investigator-initiated applications, encouraging new research ideas. Note that parent announcement applications need to be in line with the NIH’s mission, and fall within the criteria of specific NIH activity codes available here. For further information and advice on the different types of grants available, including help on which would suit your needs best, resources are available online at http://grants.nih.gov

Tips on submission

Remember to pay close attention to any specific requirements and instructions outlined in the funding announcement. Your call to funding will normally stipulate whether electronic or paper submission is required. Paper submissions require use of the PHS 398 application form, whilst electronic submission requires the SF424 (R&R) application. The majority of calls require electronic submission, details of which will be included in the funding announcement. A general application guide is also available for guidance on submission.

You need to take into account that there are multiple systems that your institution must be registered with to insure you can submit an application. These include having what’s called a Dun & Bradstreet number, (comprising a unique 9 digit code), registration with eRA commons — a grant administration interface used to share application information and track its status, institutional registration at grants.gov and also at the system of award management (sam.gov). Individual investigators applying for grants also need to register on eRA commons and grants.gov.  It can take up to 8 weeks to register with all of these, so make sure you factor this in when preparing your application.

NIH encourages you to contact their staff during the grant submission and review process. A list of staff contacts and the types of support they provide is available here. Program officials can be a useful point of contact for researchers when submitting an application, as they are responsible for developing grant initiatives and the programmatic content of a grant. Scientific review officers are responsible for conducting the technical and scientific review process. A review panel will be recruited by them from global scientists with relevance to your field. They evaluate the application to ensure it meets the criteria set out in the funding announcement, review it for scientific merit and identify potential conflicts of interest. Ultimately, their job is to provide a fair review of the grant application and provide a summary of their evaluation to applicants.

When writing your application, bear in mind NIH awards favour high impact research, that meets the priorities of the specific institute you are applying too. They also ask that you directly address the following key criteria in your application, each of which will be assigned a score by reviewers:

  1. Reviewers will want to know how the project will advance knowledge, solve a key problem and help progress in your scientific field. They will want to see a sound scientific premise for the research. Make sure you highlight the impact of the successful completion of the research project. They’ll be looking for it to be described in terms of scientific knowledge progress, advances in technical capability, or clinical practice, as relevant. Take time to describe how it might change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that are key to your field.
  2. Investigator(s). All those team members carrying out the project should be outlined here, including a clear programme of work for each contributor. You need to describe how they hold relevant training, experience and an outstanding research track record relevant to the area. If a collaboration is required, how will the experiences of the Principal Investigators, or other researchers involved, come together to deliver a successful project?
  3. Your project should aim to use new theoretical concepts, methodologies, instrumentation and interventions. You should clarify whether these represent a novel approach in your specific field or are unique across fields. Describe how you will seek to advance current research or clinical practice paradigms through your project to show innovation.
  4. Approach. Reviewers will be seeking a sound strategy, clear methodology, and analyses, that are all pertinent to achieving the stated aims of the project. They will want you to detail and pre-empt potential roadblocks and risks to the project that might arise. More importantly, you will need to state how you will deal with problems, including the alternative approaches could you take. Benchmarks for success, with clear quantifiable objectives throughout the course of the project, should be made evident. Your methodology should be justified as being scientifically robust, free from inherent bias and addressing biological variables. The use of animal and human subjects needs to be clearly justified.
  5. Environment. Here, an outline should be given of the scientific environment in which the work will be conducted. This should include all relevant resources, equipment, institutional support and collaborations, outlining how they will contribute to success.

What happens after submission

After submission of your application through your existing institute, it is handled by the Center for Scientific Review at NIH. They assign the application to the relevant reviewers and the institute you are applying too. There is a two tiered version of peer review, with the first level being referred too as the study section. During this time, your project is evaluated solely for scientific and technical merit, with the assignment of an impact score.

At the next stage, your grant submission is passed on to the institute you are applying too. The institute then evaluates it against its current priorities. After review, an advisory board from the institute will recommend whether funding should be awarded or not. The Institute Director will receive their recommendation and holds the final decision.

If successful, the institute will make the grant funding award via an applicant’s organisation to allocate funds to the Principal Investigator(s) involved in the project. The entire process normally takes at least 9 – 10 months, from the point of a submitted application to the successful receipt of a grant. There may be further stipulations that need to be met in order for the grant funding to be awarded – for example education certifications, or relevant documentation regarding any use of human or animal subjects in your research.

Good luck with your application!

Useful links

Need Funding Opportunities? Mendeley Users: visit Mendeley Funding – More Information

Tips for applying for EU research Funding – ERC Grants

Christian DeFeo

European Union funding for research is an attractive option.

Looking for European Union Research Funding? Try Mendeley Funding!

 
By Seema Sharma

Introduction

Horizon 2020 is the EU’s current research, innovation and development framework, offering €80 billion in grant funding to researchers over a seven year period (2014-2020). It differs from its forerunner, FP7, in that it combines all funding directives into a single programme for innovation, education and R&D. The framework splits the majority of the assigned fund available between three areas: excellent science (€24.4 billion), industrial leadership (€17 billion) and societal challenges (€29.7 billion). There are a few areas outside of these, for example — science with and for society, and spreading excellence and widening participation.

The main aim of the European Commission, when outlining the new programme was to simplify and streamline the funding and application processes. One additional goal was to cut decision times on successful applications from an average of a year to eight months. The Horizon 2020 scheme provides a 100% reimbursement of direct costs for research projects and a 25% refund of indirect costs.

Useful background for applying for EU funding

To apply for funding, researchers much go through the open calls for proposals, submitting their project electronically and adhere to the deadlines stipulated. Some applications involve a two-stage submission with a short proposal initially, which if successful, will require a further full proposal.

In order to apply, your organisation needs to be registered and have a 9-digit Participant Identification Code (PIC). All current open calls for proposals are available on the participants portal, where you can perform an advanced search by topic.

Applications are open to those outside Europe, and researchers with a non-EU nationality are encouraged to apply, however the calls for proposals state that the research institution where the project is carried out must either be established in an EU Member State or an associated country, or it may be an International European Interest Organisation (e.g CERN, EMBL, etc.). Further information on what count as associated countries are listed here. You can also direct general enquiries to the National Contact Point in your country.

As an example of the grants available, we’ll be covering the stages of applying for European Research Council (ERC) grants that fall under the ‘excellent science’ category of EU research call for proposals. ERC grants constitute a significant pooled budget of over €13 billion in funding.

Available ERC grants

ERC grant funding covers any individual research projects that are pioneering in frontline research, for example the life sciences, physical sciences and engineering and social sciences. They emphasise that their main selection criteria is the scientific excellence of the researcher and the project. They also prioritise projects with high risk but high gain potential. Currently, five types of grants are available.

  • ERC Starting Grant. This is an award of up to €2M with the criteria that you must have completed your PhD., 2-7 years before the publication date of the grant call. In addition, you must have at least one key publication in a high-ranking journal without the help of your PhD supervisor.
  • ERC Consolidation Grant. This follows on from the Starting Grant and has an award of up to €75M, aimed at those who completed their PhD., 7-12 years prior to applying. Grant criteria stipulate that the researcher should have gained an excellent track record and shown independence and research maturity, with several high-impact publications under their belt.
  • ERC Advanced Start Grant. This is subsequent to the Consolidation Grant, based on increasing levels of research experience. Here applicants must have a significant track record of research achievement gained in the last 10 years. The award is for up to €5M.
  • ERC Proof of Concept Grant. In order to qualify for this fourth type of grant, you must have previously received an award from the ERC. Additionally, you must demonstrate that you have research outputs that can be turned into a valuable commercial or social proposition. If successful, the grant award is up to €150M in value.
  • ERC Synergy Grant. Unlike the other grants that are aimed at an individual researcher applying, synergy grants are available for 2-4 Principal Investigators to collaborate on ambitious projects. The individual PI’s must have either an excellent early track record or more significant experience in the form of a 10 year record of achievement. The maximum award is for €10M to cover a 6 year period. Additional funding is available for PI’s needing to move to the EU as part of the proposal, equipment and access to facilities. This grant is currently on hold and will be re-introduced for 2018.

All grants awarded cover up to 5 years of research and aim to cover all of the direct costs of the project.

Tips on applying for an ERC grant

The administrative and summary forms required to apply for an ERC grant are straight-forward, although they may seem lengthy. It is essential to read the information for applicants for the specific ERC grant you are applying for (see the links at the end of the blog). Leave plenty of time so you can prepare each section with due care and attention. Also, its important to allow time for colleagues to review your application before you submit. Successful applicant researchers we spoke to spent between 3 months to 1 year preparing their ERC grant.

There are two stages to submitting the application. The first section (B1) consists of a 5 page synopsis of the project, with an accompanying 2 page CV and a track record document. Note that in the initial stage, this is all that is seen by the reviewing panel and they base their full decision on it, so it has to be outstanding.

Each panel normally consists of 10-15 experts in your field and they may not be in your direct area of expertise, so aim for clarity and concise statements on the significance of the project for a lay research audience. They are looking for individuals that demonstrate a rigorous scientific approach and management skills.

Include succinct objectives, as well as details of the scientific feasibility of the project with some preliminary data. Use this section to balance out the high risk, high gain aspects of the research. Your CV should be compelling and informative, and together with your track record showcase your expertise and excellence in your research field.

At this first stage the panel evaluates your proposal and grades your application A, B or C. Only those applications that receive an A grade are deemed high quality and will progress to the second stage. In past years one quarter of all application received a grade A to make it through to the second stage.

It is at this point the second part of your application (B2) is taken into consideration. This consists of a fifteen page explanation of your project. This must include detailed objectives, methodology and resources, including time commitments and budget. Make sure you include details of the team members involved and what they will be doing. Make the reviewers task easier by breaking up the prose with relevant figures and data.  Again, ensure you have plenty of time to prepare this part of the application. Get colleagues to review it and use any support available to you — for example your institutes grant office, to help.

If you’re successful for the first stage of the application, you are also invited to an interview in Brussels, where you give a ten minute presentation about your project. Advanced preparation with plenty of rehearsal is key to achieving the clarity the panel are looking for. Successful candidates we spoke too had spent a month preparing and rehearsing the presentation in front of peers. Preempt any doubts that may arise over scientific weaknesses in the project by explaining how you will deal with them. Ensure you provide preliminary data and demonstrate how you would problem-solve if any road blocks occurred. Project your enthusiasm and commitment to the project to the panel. Finally, the panel are looking for a certain degree of honesty, so do not be tempted to over-stress the scientific impact of your work.

Based on your B2 form and interview, your final application will be evaluated and graded A if it is excellent enough to be funded. On average, 40% of grants meet the ERC’s excellence criterion and receive a grant award at this second stage.

Good luck with your application!

Summary

  • Leave plenty of preparation time
  • Your synopsis (B1) form is crucial in the decision to get to stage 2
  • Ensure you get colleagues and peers in adjacent fields to review before you submit
  • Demonstrate outstanding knowledge of your scientific field
  • Show time commitment and an exceptional track record
  • Rehearse your interview

Useful links

EU participants portal, current calls for action
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.html,

ERC 2018 work programme

https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/ERC-Work-Programme-2018.pdf

ERC information for applicants to Starting Grant and Consolidation Grant

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-guide18-erc-stg-cog_en.pdf

ERC Information for applicants Synergy Grant

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-guide18-erc-syn_en.pdf

EU grant eligible ‘associated countries’

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/3cpart/h2020-hi-list-ac_en.pdf

National Contact Point Portal

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/support/national_contact_points.html

Need Funding Opportunities? Mendeley Users: visit Mendeley Funding – More Information