Selection Report: Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities for Funding Commencing in 2019
[TOC]
Overview
The Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities (LIEF) scheme provides funding for research infrastructure, equipment and facilities to eligible organisations to support research. The scheme enables higher education researchers to participate in cooperative initiatives so that expensive infrastructure, equipment and facilities can be shared between higher education organisations and also with industry.
The objectives of the LIEF scheme are to:
- encourage Eligible Organisations to develop collaborative arrangements with other Eligible Organisations and/or Partner Organisations to develop and support research infrastructure
- support large-scale national or international cooperative initiatives allowing expensive research infrastructure to be shared and/or accessed
- support areas of existing and/or emerging research strength and
- support and develop research infrastructure for the broader research community
Selection Process
Proposals for funding commencing in 2019 opened on 22 January 2018, and closed on 28 March 2018. 145 Proposals were submitted through the Australian Research Council (ARC) Research Management System (RMS). This report outlines recommendations from the ARC Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
The ARC Chief Executive Officer (CEO) provided recommendations to the Minister based on advice from the ARC College of Experts which:
- assigned independent assessors to review the proposals
- assessed proposals and reviewed assessments made by independent assessors
- reviewed candidates’ comments on assessors’ reports
- ranked each proposal relative to the others on the basis of the proposal, the assessors’ reports and candidates’ responses to those assessments
- assessed and approved budgets
and advice from the ARC NCGP Eligibility Committee which:
- considered eligibility issues identified by ARC staff, the ARC College of Experts or independent assessors
- where required, sought advice from the ARC’s Medical Research Advisory Group
- made recommendations to the CEO in respect of ineligible proposals.
This report reflects the outcomes approved by the Minister. Unless otherwise specified, figures presented in this report exclude withdrawn proposals.
Selection Criteria
Selection criteria and corresponding weightings for LIEF 2019 proposals are:
| Project Quality and Innovation (includes relevance of research to be supported with the proposed research infrastructure) | 25% |
| Feasibility (includes nature of the alliance and commitment between the organisations named on the Proposal) | 25% |
| Investigator(s) | 20% |
| Benefit (includes need and use; demonstrated need for the features specific to the requested research infrastructure/equipment/facilities) | 30% |
The ARC assessment process for 2019 used a Selection Advisory Committee consisting of 16 ARC College of Experts members and was managed in the Research Management System (RMS). A total of 513 independent assessors’ reports were submitted to the ARC.
Funding levels and duration
The minimum level of funding provided by the ARC under LIEF is $150,000 per annum and the maximum level of funding cannot exceed 75.0 per cent of the total direct cost of the eligible budget item(s). Funding is provided for up to one year; or, up to five consecutive years for construction of research infrastructure or coordinated access to major national and/or international research facilities.
Summary of Outcomes
The ARC received 145 proposals for LIEF for funding commencing in 2019, of which one proposal was withdrawn. This is a decrease from the 171 proposals received for funding commencing in 2018. Of the unsuccessful proposals, 26 were found to not meet eligibility requirements.
The overall success rate for funding commencing in 2019 is 25.0 per cent, with a higher percentage of allocation of requested funds compared to funding commencing in 2018. A comparison of success rates and funding amounts is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of proposal numbers, success rates, requested and allocated funds for approved LIEF proposals from 2018 to 2019
|
Funding year |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success rate (%) |
Requested funds over project life (all proposals) |
Requested funds over project life (approved proposals) |
Funds allocated over project life* |
Allocation as a percentage of request (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2018 |
171 |
50 |
29.2 |
$122,412,370 |
$33,697,811 |
$28,576,391 |
84.8 |
|
2019 |
144 |
36 |
25.0 |
$111,480,217 |
$29,520,578 |
$27,421,223 |
92.9 |
*May include indicative funds
Outcomes by Science and Research Priorities
A summary of outcomes by Science and Research Priorities is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Approved funding and success rate for LIEF 2019 proposals by Science and Research Priorities
|
Science and Research Priorities |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success |
Approved funds (over project life) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Advanced manufacturing |
59 |
16 |
27.1 |
$11,746,859 |
|
Cybersecurity |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
Energy |
10 |
1 |
10.0 |
$540,000 |
|
Environmental change |
18 |
4 |
22.2 |
$6,605,648 |
|
Food |
8 |
1 |
12.5 |
$489,045 |
|
Health |
8 |
1 |
12.5 |
$372,210 |
|
Resources |
7 |
3 |
42.9 |
$2,242,919 |
|
Soil and water |
3 |
1 |
33.3 |
$740,948 |
|
Transport |
4 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
Unspecified |
26 |
9 |
34.6 |
$4,683,594 |
|
Total |
144 |
36 |
25.0 |
$27,421,223 |
|
Total within Science and Research Priorities |
118 |
27 |
22.9 |
$22,737,629 |
|
Percentage within Science and Research Priorities (%) |
81.9 |
75.0 |
N/A |
82.9 |
Outcomes by Administering Organisation
A summary of outcomes by Administering Organisation is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Numbers of proposals and success rates for approved LIEF 2019 proposals by Administering Organisation
|
Administering Organisation |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success rate (%) |
Approved funding over project life ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Australian Capital Territory |
12 |
6 |
50.0 |
$7,824,950 |
|
The Australian National University |
12 |
6 |
50.0 |
$7,824,950 |
|
New South Wales |
41 |
10 |
24.4 |
$5,834,742 |
|
Macquarie University |
6 |
1 |
16.7 |
$500,000 |
|
Southern Cross University |
3 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
The University of New England |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
The University of New South Wales |
12 |
3 |
25.0 |
$1,376,603 |
|
The University of Newcastle |
6 |
1 |
16.7 |
$420,000 |
|
The University of Sydney |
8 |
3 |
37.5 |
$1,543,139 |
|
University of Technology Sydney |
3 |
2 |
66.7 |
$1,995,000 |
|
University of Wollongong |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
Western Sydney University |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
Queensland |
14 |
5 |
35.7 |
$4,490,503 |
|
Griffith University |
2 |
1 |
50.0 |
$438,783 |
|
Queensland University of Technology |
3 |
1 |
33.3 |
$2,713,348 |
|
The University of Queensland |
8 |
2 |
25.0 |
$1,179,372 |
|
University of Southern Queensland |
1 |
1 |
100.0 |
$159,000 |
|
South Australia |
13 |
5 |
38.5 |
$2,061,056 |
|
Flinders University |
3 |
2 |
66.7 |
$700,625 |
|
The University of Adelaide |
9 |
3 |
33.3 |
$1,360,431 |
|
University of South Australia |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
Tasmania |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
University of Tasmania |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
Victoria |
46 |
6 |
13.0 |
$4,552,053 |
|
Deakin University |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
La Trobe University |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$0 |
|
Monash University |
19 |
3 |
15.8 |
$2,448,398 |
|
RMIT University |
10 |
1 |
10.0 |
$514,250 |
|
Swinburne University of Technology |
2 |
1 |
50.0 |
$725,405 |
|
The University of Melbourne |
13 |
1 |
7.7 |
$864,000 |
|
Western Australia |
16 |
4 |
25.0 |
$2,657,919 |
|
Curtin University |
6 |
3 |
50.0 |
$2,242,919 |
|
The University of Western Australia |
10 |
1 |
10.0 |
$415,000 |
|
Total |
144 |
36 |
25.0 |
$27,421,223 |
Gender
A total of 1449 Chief Investigators (CIs) were named on all proposals considered in this round. Of these, 314 were female CIs and 1135 were male CIs. The success rate for female and male CIs in this round of LIEF is 27.1 per cent and 26.9 per cent respectively.
Collaboration with Other Eligible, Partner Organisations, Other Organisations and International Organisations
LIEF proposals are expected to develop collaborative arrangements with Other Eligible Organisations and/or Partner and Other Organisations. A proposal must involve two or more Eligible Organisations unless it is a Single Eligible Organisation proposal and can demonstrate that collaborative use of the proposed research infrastructure by another Eligible Organisation is not practicable.
The success rate for Single Eligible Organisation proposals is 20.0 per cent. A summary of success rates by number of Eligible Organisations is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. LIEF 2019 proposals summary of success rates by number of Eligible Organisations
|
Number of Eligible Organisations on the Proposal |
Number of Proposals considered |
Number of Proposals approved |
Success rate within band (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 † |
5 |
1 |
20.0 |
|
2 |
13 |
2 |
15.4 |
|
3 |
44 |
9 |
20.5 |
|
4 |
35 |
10 |
28.6 |
|
5 |
21 |
5 |
23.8 |
|
6 |
13 |
3 |
23.1 |
|
7 |
6 |
2 |
33.3 |
|
8 |
6 |
3 |
50.0 |
|
11 |
1 |
1 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
144 |
36 |
25.0 |
† A Single Eligible Organisation Proposal means a proposal which includes only one Eligible Organisation (the Administering Organisation). A Single Eligible Organisation proposal may or may not include Partner Organisations and/or Other Organisations. There were no proposals with 9 or 10 Eligible Organisations.
A summary of proposals success rates by number of All Collaborating Organisations is shown in Table 5. The success rate for proposals which do not include collaboration/s with Eligible Organisations, Partner Organisations or Other Organisations is 33.3 per cent. Proposals involving collaboration with six Eligible Organisations, Partner Organisations or Other Organisations had the highest success rate - 41.2 per cent (Table 5).
Table 5. LIEF 2019 proposals success rates by number of All Collaborating Organisations
|
Number of Collaborating Organisations* |
Number of Proposals considered |
Number of Proposals approved |
Success rate within band (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
33.3 |
|
2 |
7 |
1 |
14.3 |
|
3 |
19 |
5 |
26.3 |
|
4 |
38 |
9 |
23.7 |
|
5 |
25 |
5 |
20.0 |
|
6 |
17 |
7 |
41.2 |
|
7 |
11 |
3 |
27.3 |
|
8 |
13 |
3 |
23.1 |
|
9 |
4 |
1 |
25.0 |
|
10 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
11 |
3 |
1 |
33.3 |
|
12 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
14 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
144 |
36 |
25.0 |
* Collaborating organisations include the Administering Organisation, Other Eligible Organisations, Partner Organisations and Other Organisations. There were no proposals with 13 collaborating organisations.
Applicants foreshadowed 307 instances of collaboration with researchers in 47 overseas locations on 79 proposals. Of the proposals approved for funding, 22 foreshadowed 108 instances of collaboration with researchers in 29 overseas locations (Figure 1).
Figure 1. International collaborations by location in approved LIEF 2019 proposals*
*The top 13 international collaboration locations are listed in Figure 1 and the remaining locations are grouped in the ‘other’ category
- United States of America, 19
- England 12,
- China (excludes SARs and Taiwan), 9
- Germany, 9
- Japan, 7
- France, 6
- Spain, 5
- Canada, 4
- Italy, 4
- Switzerland, 4
- Austria, 3
- Netherlands, 3
- Singapore, 3
- Others, 21
Leverage of ARC funding
On the LIEF proposals approved for funding, for every dollar funded by the ARC the proposed dollar contribution of the Organisations listed on these proposals is $1.31 shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Leverage of ARC funds for approved proposals
|
Proposals approved |
Approved ARC funding |
Number of unique Collaborating Organisations* |
Incidence of involvement of Collaborating Organisations* |
Collaborating Organisations Cash and In-kind contribution ($ equivalent) |
Leverage (Collaborating Contribution/ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
36 |
$27,421,223 |
50 |
186 |
$35,878,230 |
$1.31 |
*Collaborating Organisations include the Administering Organisation, Other Eligible Organisations, Partner Organisations and Other Organisations.
Summary of LIEF proposals approved for funding
A summary of the proposals approved for funding commencing in 2019, by Administering Organisation is outlined in Table 7. The proposal titles indicate the variety of equipment, infrastructure and facilities supported in this scheme round.
Table 7. LIEF proposals approved for funding commencing in 2019
|
Proposals approved for funding |
Administering Organisation |
Lead CI |
|---|---|---|
|
A novel ToF-SIMS facility for organic and inorganic analyses in WA |
Curtin University
|
Prof Kliti Grice |
|
The Western Australia ThermoChronology Hub |
Dr Martin Danisik |
|
|
Cutting-edge electron backscatter diffraction for materials analysis |
Prof Steven Reddy |
|
|
Thin film microfluidic systems facility |
Flinders University |
Prof Colin Raston AO FAA |
|
Chemical signature analysis of surfaces |
Prof Gunther Andersson |
|
|
A femtosecond laser micromachining facility for a wide range of materials |
Griffith University |
Prof Nam-Trung Nguyen |
|
A robotic telescope leveraging global science from Veloce |
Macquarie University |
Dr Christian Schwab |
|
Multi-functional 3D imaging system for micro and nanoscale devices |
Monash University |
A/Prof Qiaoliang Bao |
|
A national Magnetic Particle Imaging Facility |
Prof Gary Egan |
|
|
High resolution airborne P-band radar for environmental research |
Prof Jeffrey Walker |
|
|
Development of a Universal Super Transmission Electron Microscope |
Queensland University of Technology |
Prof Dmitri Golberg |
|
Manikin Flash Fire Evaluation System for material thermal protection |
RMIT University |
Prof Rajiv Padhye |
|
iHUB: a smart urban research-synthesis-engagement platform for decision making |
Swinburne University of Technology |
Prof Dr Peter Newton |
|
Construction of SABRE, Australia's first full-scale dark matter detector |
The Australian National University |
Dr Gregory Lane |
|
Enhanced beam injection for Australia's Heavy Ion Accelerator Facility |
Prof Andrew Stuchbery |
|
|
Australian mountain environmental research infrastructure facility |
Prof Adrienne Nicotra |
|
|
High resolution gas chromatography mass spectrometry for metabolic research |
Prof Rod Peakall |
|
|
Sustaining and strengthening merit-based access to National Computational Infrastructure |
Prof Sean CSmith |
|
|
Multi-angle in-operando mapping of nanoscale electro/photo-redox reactions |
Dr Zongyou Yin |
|
|
An Australian rental housing conditions data infrastructure |
The University of Adelaide |
A/Prof Emma Baker |
|
A world-class machine learning facility for Australia |
Prof Anton Jvan den Hengel |
|
|
3D glass printing: the next step in advanced manufacturing |
Prof Heike Ebendorff-Heidepriem |
|
|
Enabling the future of the Australian collider physics program |
The University of Melbourne |
Prof Geoffrey NTaylor |
|
AusKidTalk: an Australian children's speech corpus |
The University of New South Wales |
Dr Beena Ahmed |
|
Next generation facility for investigating thermodynamics and kinetics |
Prof Pall Thordarson |
|
|
X-ray facility for protein crystallography |
Prof Paul MCurmi |
|
|
Time-layered cultural map of Australia |
The University of Newcastle |
Prof Hugh Craig |
|
A gas chromatography-high resolution accurate mass spectrometry facility |
The University of Queensland |
Prof Kevin Thomas |
|
An integrated materials surface analytical facility |
Prof Ian RGentle |
|
|
Advanced mechanical property testing suite |
The University of Sydney |
Prof Xiaozhou Liao |
|
A comprehensive correlative cryo microscopy laboratory |
Prof Julie MCairney |
|
|
Hector-1: completing the revolutionary multi integral field spectrograph |
Prof Jonathan Bland-Hawthorn |
|
|
High throughput Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Facility |
The University of Western Australia |
Prof George Koutsantonis |
|
A dedicated telescope to study the interiors of stars from their oscillations |
University of Southern Queensland |
A/Prof Robert Wittenmyer |
|
The Australian environmental and planning law library |
University of Technology Sydney |
Prof Andrew Mowbray |
|
Volumetric imaging facility: observing the cell in its native environment |
Prof Dayong Jin |