HOW TO APPLY FOR SUPPORT FROM THE NETWORK

The Network supports three types of collaborative or networking activity. The biggest is working groups. We also support postgrads and postdocs travelling to build collaboration between labs, and preparation of innovative postdoc proposals.

The Network's leading aim is to accomplish or stimulate high-impact research.

If this website does not answer your questions, you are welcome to discuss possibilities in advance with the Network’s convenor, Mark Westoby mwestoby@bio.mq.edu.au.

Scope
The Network's role is to encourage effective and creative collaboration between labs and across disciplines. The Network is not permitted to fund individual data-collecting research projects.

The potential range of topics is wide, spanning for example molecular genetics and proteomics, evolutionary radiation, biogeography and control of distribution boundaries, ecophysiology, development and architecture, root symbioses, ecosystem processes, functional and comparative ecology, global change, forestry, rangelands, agricultural landscapes, herbivory, pollination, fire, vegetation dynamics and population dynamics, soil processes, nutrient cycles, herbivory, plant diseases, global change, quaternary landscapes, palaeoecology.

Eligibility
Lead applicants need not have participated in the Network previously. Applications from postgrads and postdocs will be considered just as sympathetically as applications from senior researchers.

Lead applicants are not required to be based in Australia. However, benefit for Australian research is an important selection criterion. Linkage with New Zealand is welcome, but is not obligatory.

Joint funding

Where a proposed activity has some benefit for Australian research but also a heavy overseas emphasis, the Network will naturally be more enthusiastic about funding it if there are also financial contributions from beyond Australia. We have cordial relations with NCEAS, NESCent and QUEST, for example, and are always willing to consider proposals involving joint funding.

Application and decisions
Proposals should outline the idea and the people involved, at the length of 1-2 pages. There is no application form, but please address the questions indicated below for each type of project. The questions can be used as sub-headings.

The Network's Science Advisory Board considers batches of proposals during April and October each year. Deadlines for inclusion in these batches are 1st April and 1st October. However, the Network wants to expedite good ideas as fast as possible, so we are happy to consider proposals at other times of year also.

Proposals should be sent to vegadmin@bio.mq.edu.au. Receipt will be acknowledged. The Network aims to make and communicate decisions within 3-4 weeks.

The Science Advisory Board may have suggestions to make about participation or direction, in those proposals recommended for funding. The Network’s convenor will contact applicants to discuss these suggestions, and to negotiate more detailed arrangements generally.

Thereafter it will be up to the leaders of each funded working group to arrange dates and to drive the work forward. The Network Office will help as much as possible with practical arrangements.

Travel by Australian postgrads and postdocs to build collaboration between research groups
Travel plus some accommodation can be supported for visits in the range 2 weeks to 3 months. Letters of application (to vegadmin@bio.mq.edu.au) should come from leaders of both research groups, in order to confirm that there is commitment from the two labs, not only from the person travelling.

Letters of application should address the following questions. They are the Network's criteria in choosing between competing proposals.

(1) Will the visit accomplish publication-quality research?

(2) In what way will the visit lay a foundation for new collaborative grant proposals?

(3) How talented is the postgrad or postdoc? (Undergrad academic record or other evidence can be attached.)

(4) In what way will the student or postgrad acquire new skills different from those in their home lab?

(5) Would the expenditure be moderate relative to the outcomes? Please indicate the support needed towards travel and accommodation, on top of whatever contributions may already be available from participating labs or people or Departments.

Visits will be supported only if they lead to actual research being carried out at the lab visited, or to proposals being written. Seminar-giving, discussion and conference attendance are not sufficient outcomes to attract support.

Postdoc proposals
The Network would like to encourage the kind of postdoc applications (to ARC or other funding agencies) where the applicant is moving away from their home lab and building innovative bridges to new disciplines or methodologies. It can be difficult for an early-career researcher to develop a proposal in a new field, since they will not have such mastery of literature as in their own PhD topic.

Accordingly the Network is willing to support visits for up to 4 weeks to Australian labs by prospective postdocs in order to prepare fully-polished postdoc proposals to work there.

The Network will be willing to write letters to ARC in support of applications that have been developed under this program.

Letters of application (to vegadmin@bio.mq.edu.au) should come from both the would-be postdoc and the leader of the lab where they would move to. Please address the following questions, which will be the Network's criteria in choosing between competing applications.

(1) In what way would the postdoctoral proposal form an innovative and creative collaboration? Why would the funding agency be impressed by the combination of skills and ideas between the would-be postdoc and the lab they would be moving to?

(2) Is the postdoc's personal track record likely to be competitive for a postdoc from the intended funding agency? (Attach CV, publications list and any other useful evidence.)

Please also indicate what might be available by way of moderate-cost accommodation for the visit, and what expenses would be needed for it. The Network seeks to provide adequate support, but at the same time, money may be a factor in deciding which proposals can be funded.

Working Groups - Due April 1 and October 1 each year
Working groups offer a mechanism to develop new syntheses, data analyses, theory and proposals, and to collaborate intensively and congenially with other researchers. Please consult here for principles of working groups, and here for a list of the Network's current working groups.

Applications should address the following questions.

(1) How will the working group lead to definite research outputs, not just to discussions? This will include specifying one or more definite research questions that can be answered by a working group. Why are these high-impact questions? How will the working group bring together data or theory to answer them? What do you hope to achieve during each successive meeting, and how many meetings do you expect to be needed?

(2) Who are the people you hope will participate, and what would they each contribute? This does not need to be a complete and final list. The Science Advisory Board may have advice or suggestions. Please comment on which particular people can give the project enough of their time to drive analyses and publications forward effectively. Please comment on any participation of research students, postdocs and early-career researchers. (The Network is strongly in favour of research student participation, but funded participants are expected to be genuine contributors to driving the research forward.) Since working groups tend to become less effective as the number of people climbs, please make a case if you seek more than 12 participants. Please provide links to the personal websites of the people, so that the Science Advisory Board can assess their interests and talents. If they don’t have websites, it would be helpful to attach short CVs at least for the most significant participants.

If Australians are to be a minority among the participants, please make a case for how the working group will stimulate research in Australia. Another possibility is for a working group to be supported jointly by some overseas organization as well as by the Network. Advice about working group support from QUEST is here, from NCEAS is here, and from NESCent is here. Proposals that bridge constructively between networks are encouraged. Please contact participating networks beforehand to discuss how a share-funding proposal can best be handled.

In the past, some applicants seem to have been under the impression that working group proposals are expected to involve the convenors Westoby and Wright, and to lie within their personal fields of interest. This is absolutely not the case.

Proposals do not need to include budgets. We will make a financial offer to proposals ranked high enough for funding. The principle is that we cover economy airfares, accommodation and sustenance for invited participants. Salary-time of participants is not funded. There is provision to assist researchers with carer responsibilities to participate.

As far as locations, one option is for meetings to be held at Network HQ in Sydney. The Network has a standard set of costings that adequately cover travel and accommodation for Sydney. Another option is for meetings to be held elsewhere. This is entirely acceptable, provided the costs are not greater than would be needed for Sydney. Applicants should understand also that if they hold the meetings elsewhere than at Network HQ, the work of organizing meeting space, web access, accommodation and catering will necessarily fall on them rather than on Network staff.

The Science Advisory Board will apply the following main criteria when assessing working group proposals:

• Is the research question interesting? Does it bring together people in novel combinations? Can good progress be made through the working group mechanism?
• Is there a credible plan to generate high-impact research outputs? (Typically publications in strong journals or multi-institution research proposals, but the Board is open to suggestions about other outcomes.)
• Do the people involved have the talent, energy and time to ensure that outputs emerge from the working group?
• Does the proposal stimulate research in Australia?