“Everybody lies.”
Anyone who has seen Hugh Laurie’s performance as the acerbic, misanthropic doctor on the television show 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 will be familiar with this refrain.
It’s something that I found myself thinking about when I worked at EPSRC.
It’s not that researchers lie exactly … but sometimes the truth 𝘤𝘢𝘯 be stretched or misinterpreted.
“𝗜 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝟱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝟲! 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗜 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱?!”
When I looked at their reviews, they actually had a 3, two 4s, and a 6. I’ve dealt with this scenario more than once, but the actual numbers were always different from what I was originally told … and the lowest was usually ignored.
It’s worth remembering that the numbers on a UKRI proposal are not scores in the traditional sense of the word. They’re summary marks, i.e. they’re a shorthand for how supportive or not a reviewer is.
The rule of thumb used during my time at the research councils was:
5-6 = supportive
4 = could go either way
1-3 = not supportive
But regardless of the number, it was the reviewers’ comments that were important … and funding is about the panel’s rank order list, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 the summary marks.
“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵! 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻!”
It is. And it’s a very serious accusation. When I worked at EPSRC, we checked reviews to ensure that nothing about protected characteristics was brought into the evaluation. It was very rare, but reviews that crossed a line were immediately rejected and a new reviewer would be sought.
However, in this case, not one word was mentioned about age.
The reviewer 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 said they didn’t think the applicant demonstrated the necessary skills or expertise in their track record to carry out the research.
This is perfectly within bounds because it addresses the assessment criteria “the right balance of skills and expertise to cover the proposed work”. The project lead (a.k.a. PI) would then have a chance to provide additional evidence in the applicant response.
This and other calls of discrimination were never what they appeared to be when examining the original text.
Unlike 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦, I’m afraid there’s no dramatic twist at the end that solves the problem.
Instead, it’s about taking a deep breath and deciding what to do next.
It may be a matter of looking at the reviewers’ comments with fresh eyes to determine what needs to be changed next time.
It may be asking a colleague to weigh in on the tone used in the applicant response. It wasn’t uncommon for applicants to shoot themselves in the foot with these responses, and it was often the tone that was to blame. (hint: if the response comes across as angry, arrogant, aggressive, dismissive, defensive, or petty, then it’s best to throw it away and start again).
It may be accepting that there’s just not enough money to go around, even to very good project ideas.
If you’re looking for even more help, give me and Professor Dan Allwood a shout. Although we can never guarantee funding success, we can give you our honest feedback.