A Handbook for Researchers

Research From Finding Funding to Final Report

A Handbook for Researchers 4th Edition 2010/2011

Research From Finding Funding to Final Report A Handbook for Researchers 4th Edition 2010/2011

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1 2. ONLINE FUNDING DATABASES ....................................................................................................................... 2 How To Use Research Professional ....................................................................................................................... 2 How To Use UK Research Office (UKRO) .............................................................................................................. 7 3. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................ 8 Finding a Funder .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Research Focus ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Funder Agenda....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Feasibility and Innovation ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Identify Resources .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Collaboration .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Partners ............................................................................................................................................................... 10 Proposal Style and Presentation........................................................................................................................... 10 Impact .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Dissemination....................................................................................................................................................... 11 4. COSTING RESEARCH PROPOSALS .............................................................................................................. 12 Completing a Costing ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Staff Costs............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Non-staff Direct Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Indirect Costs ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Inflation ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Costing Seventh Framework Programme Proposals............................................................................................. 14 Value Added Tax (VAT) ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Full Economic Costing – Frequently Asked Questions .......................................................................................... 14 5. DEMONSTRATING IMPACT ............................................................................................................................ 18 6. INTERNAL APPROVAL PROCEDURES .......................................................................................................... 20 The Internal Authorisation Process ....................................................................................................................... 20 Agresso ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Gaining Ethical Approval ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Research Projects and Indemnity ......................................................................................................................... 21 The Research Passport Scheme .......................................................................................................................... 22 Flowchart to Determine Level of Ethical Scrutiny .................................................................................................. 23 7. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS ............................................................................................... 24 Submission through Je-S...................................................................................................................................... 24 Submission Through EPSS .................................................................................................................................. 31 8. PROPOSAL EVALUATION .............................................................................................................................. 32 Research Council Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 32 EU Framework Programme Evaluation……………………………………………………………………………………32 Success Rates ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Unsuccessful Research Council Bids ................................................................................................................... 33 Unsuccessful FP7 Bids……………………………………………………………………………………………………...33 Successful Research Proposals ........................................................................................................................... 34 9. SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME (FP7) POST-AWARD ACTIVITY .................................................... 35 Project Reporting.................................................................................................................................................. 35 Obtaining the Money ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Pre-financing – Worked Example ......................................................................................................................... 35 Payments – Worked Example............................................................................................................................... 36 Audit ..................................................................................................................................................................... 36 10. THE FINAL REPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Electronic Submission .......................................................................................................................................... 37 11. RESEARCH OUTPUTS: NORTHUMBRIA RESEARCH LINK ........................................................................ 39 Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Northumbria Research Link .................................................................................................................................. 39 Submitting Research Outputs to NRL ................................................................................................................... 40 Output Guardians ................................................................................................................................................. 41 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Checklist prior to writing a research application ................................................................................ 43 Appendix 2: Checklist for making a research application ..................................................................................... 44 Appendix 3: Research, Business and Innovation: ................................................................................................ 45 Final Check on Research Council Proposals ........................................................................................................ 45 Appendix 4: Useful Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 46

HOW TO DEVELOP YOUR RESEARCH PROPOSAL AT NORTHUMBRIA HOW TO DEVELOP YOUR EU FP7 PROPOSAL AT NORTHUMBRIA

1. INTRODUCTION The various stages of conducting a research project at Northumbria University – choosing a suitable area, accessing appropriate funding, getting authorisation, applying online, being successful (or unsuccessful!) and publishing and disseminating the final report - can add up to a daunting process. This handbook has been designed as a „toolkit‟ containing a variety of resources to help you solve the issues as they arise. The handbook can be found in pdf format on the University website at http://northumbria.ac.uk/static/5007/respdf/findingfundingtofinalreport2.pdf Most of the information contained here can also be found on the University‟s Research Support web pages at http://northumbria.ac.uk/researchandconsultancy, which will be revised and updated as necessary. November 2010

1

2. ONLINE FUNDING DATABASES Northumbria subscribes to two major sources of funding information: Research Professional and the UK Research Office (UKRO). How To Use Research Professional Research Professional is a collection of global databases of news, funding opportunities and sponsors. You can access the database from any computer with a Northumbria IP address and share information within your School and Research Groups. The system is located at www.researchprofessional.com Registration

Please note that although the system was radically upgraded in 2009, usernames and passwords from previous versions are still active. If, however, you have never used the service, register by clicking the „Self-registration‟ button in the middle box, above.

The Home Page The Research Professional home page (below) provides links to all aspects of the service. From here you can: Search for funding (use the „Funding‟ option at the top left of the page) Access shared resources in your School or Research Group (select the relevant option in the directory. To expand the headings under your School, click on the purple box next to the School) Read current and past issues of Research Fortnight and Research Europe (Select the „News‟ option).

Research: From Finding Funding to Final Report

2

If you need guidance at any time, use the „Help‟ option in the right corner. You will find guides to getting started and instructional videos.

To Search for Funding

To read Research Fortnight

Help Button

Schools and Research Groups

Searching for Funding Opportunities Follow these directions to search for funding: 1. Click on „Funding‟. 2. Click on „Funding Search.‟ The screen below on the following page will appear. Use the boxes in the blue field to enter the criteria for your search. Once you have selected one set of criteria you have the option to add another set of criteria to narrow the search.


3

For example, if you wanted to search for funding by discipline, select „Disciplines‟ in the first box. A third box will appear with the word „Select‟ under it. Click on select, and you will be able to browse or search for disciplines. You can select as many disciplines as you wish by clicking on them. The programme will automatically save your selections, so only click „save‟ when you are finished. Click on the ‟ ‟ button to add additional search criteria such as „award type‟ to find any specific awards available (i.e. fellowships) in your chosen disciplines. When you have finished entering your chosen criteria, click „search‟ in the blue field and the results of your updated search will appear below. Be mindful that there could be more than one page! 3. If you want to narrow your results further, use the „+‟ and „-„ buttons above the „search‟ button. A new line will appear and enter the new criteria as you did above.

Results will appear here

To save a search When you have created a search, you can save it so you can use it again in the future or share it with others. When you click on the saved search, it will produce updated results using your saved criteria. 1. Make sure that the box around your search lines is highlighted blue, as in the previous image. This enables you to select the options directly above the blue box (save, email item, etc). If it is not blue, click anywhere in the box and it will turn blue. 2. To save the search, click „Save.‟ 3. A new box will appear, select „Save As.‟ 4. Enter the name of the Search and click on your name to save it in your saved searches. Click „Save‟ at the bottom. 5. After you have saved it, check that it is now located on the left-hand side of the screen under „Saved searches.‟ It will appear here every time you log in.


4

You search is saved here

Joining a Research Group and Accessing Group-Saved Searches It is strongly recommended that you join your School‟s group and any relevant research groups. There are research groups set up in each of the schools, and across the institution (ie Energy and Environment). All of these groups can have public searches that the Group Administrator or Editor can save to the folder. You can also set up email alerts to the saved searches when you are a member. To join a group, follow these steps: 1. Click on your name in the top left corner of the screen. 2. Click on „Group Membership.‟ A list will appear of all the groups in the University. Tick the box next to each one that you want to join. Remember to expand the list under your School (click on the purple box next to your School) as there will be additional groups. Remember to click „Save‟ when you are finished. To access a saved search, please follow these steps: 1. Make sure that you have selected the Directory in the left column. 2. Select the group that you wish to view. 3. The screen on the next page appears; click on the search that you wish to use; your search results will appear.


5

Select a folder to run the desired search

Saving a Shared Search You can also save a shared search into your personal „shared searches‟ folder. By doing this, you can set up an email alert or modify the search to meet your specific needs. After you have opened the search and the results are listed, follow these steps: 1. Make sure that the area around the search criteria is highlighted blue. Do this by clicking anywhere in the grey box. Click „Save‟ at the top. 2. You have two options: either „Save As‟ or „Shortcut.‟ If you select „Save As‟, a copy of the search will be saved in your „Saved searches‟ folder. This is your personal copy. Any changes made to the search by the Administrator will not be reflected. If you select „Shortcut,‟ the search will be added to your „Institution Resources‟ folder. It will reflect any changes that the Administrator makes to the search.


6

How To Use UK Research Office (UKRO)

UKRO is one of the UK's leading information and advice services on European Union funding for research and higher education and can be accessed with a University IP address at www.ukro.ac.uk. To set up an UKRO account, or to sign up for customised information about EU funding opportunities, complete the simple on-line form on the UKRO website (http://www.ukro.ac.uk) The form only takes a couple of minutes to complete: From the opening page of the UKRO website, click on 'Subscriber Services'. Next, click on the 'Information Services' tab In the second paragraph on this screen, you can click on: http://ims.ukro.ac.uk Once there, click on: 'If you do not yet have a profile, click here' The registration form is then available for you to complete and submit. (When choosing the subject areas, if you click on the arrow after the main heading, it will give a list of subjects you can choose from, or you can choose to „select all‟.) Shortly afterwards, you will receive a username and password.


7

3. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT The following section identifies and explains the different elements involved in drawing up a proposal for research funding. Finding a Funder It is important to identify the most appropriate funding scheme for your project. Find out about the funding opportunities available to you by talking to your School Research Administrator, colleagues or personal contacts, searching the internet - including the University‟s research funding web pages and using Research Professional (see Chapter 2). If you are new to research, take advantage of special schemes and initiatives directed at new researchers. If it is your first application you may have more success applying for a small amount of funding from a scheme with a higher success rate. Small grants that support overseas visits, for example, are very useful for building up relationships for future collaborative ventures, learning new skills or undertaking feasibility studies. Awards like these also help with later efforts to secure larger grants that are difficult to obtain without a proven track record as an independent researcher. For some research areas, particularly in science and engineering, creating links with industry can be an excellent way of getting some initial research funded. Speak to colleagues in Research, Business and Innovation who can support you in this. Check the funding bodies‟ web sites to look at the funding rates they employ as one may be more favourable than another. Select your funder and discuss any implications with your School‟s Associate Dean for Research or Dean, trying to balance the benefits of the research with the implications for the School. Research Focus Consider why a funder would fund your research. Is it innovative, ambitious research? Your application for funding will only be successful if it is based on an excellent research idea that would have a substantial impact upon your field. You can identify priority areas in your field by reading the appropriate journals. One tip to gauge the importance of your research is to decide which journal you would like to publish the results in. If you do not think the research will be of interest to the main journal in your field, it is unlikely to be of interest to your chosen funder. Funder Agenda It is important to research your chosen funder, at the very least to look at their internet site and read their organisational strategy documents. You need to understand their current objectives and be assured that your application is in line with their focus area. Your mentor, line manager, School Research Administrator (or equivalent) and other colleagues can provide useful information. If you are applying for a research grant you could also telephone the appropriate programme manager to learn more about the funding body's priorities and whether your research project would be suitable for your chosen funding scheme. If details of the membership of the Review Panel are available, you can use this information to help focus your proposal. It is also a good idea to read some successful applications to your chosen funding body - ask your School Research Administrator, or look at the list of successful proposals on the Northumbria website at http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/researchandconsultancy/sa/newbid_support/tips/ to see if there are any in a similar field.


8

Feasibility and Innovation In order for your proposal to have any chance of success it must be based on research of the highest quality and originality. You need to articulate how exciting and novel your proposal is, emphasising what is 'revolutionary' about it. If appropriate, conduct some background research or a pilot study. Proposals that contain data or material demonstrating that the proposed project is achievable are more likely to receive funding. If possible, a preliminary publication also helps. Highlight any practical outcome or commercial, social or medical benefits your project might have. It is a common mistake of those new to writing grant proposals to be over ambitious, so take care not to promise more than you are confident you can deliver. You should demonstrate how your proposed research connects to existing research and how it will make an important contribution to furthering this knowledge. It is very important to emphasise how the project maps onto the funding body's priorities and to make it explicit that your objectives match theirs. If you are applying for a studentship or fellowship, you need to present yourself as someone the funder would want to invest in. You should include details about your career aspirations, expectations in research and training requirements, to prove that you are the right person to be funded to do the research. Demonstrate that the proposed research is realistic and timely by providing appropriate background information and citing leaders in the field. If you are asked to recommend external reviewers, choose people who are respected experts in the field and who also know your work well enough to provide a comprehensive reference. If you are asked to respond to comments and concerns raised by referees you should respond directly to the issues raised, demonstrating your expert knowledge. Identify Resources Discuss your ideas with your line manager, mentor, Associate Dean for Research, Research Group and other colleagues in the same and relevant fields to help clarify and focus your ideas. Some HEIs operate „critical circles‟ where staff „pitch‟ their ideas to their colleagues, allowing them to identify possible gaps or omissions. When preparing an initial research proposal you should ask colleagues and contacts to comment on drafts (bearing in mind the pressures on their time). Even experienced researchers should ask those who have reviewed grant applications or sat on funding panels, to review a late draft of your proposal - this may already be built into peer review procedures within your School. If you have nominated referees you should ring them and ask them to provide you with feedback on a near final version. Many proposals are criticised by the very referees nominated by the PI. As well as asking experts in your field, it is useful to ask someone outside of your field to check that your application is understandable to a generalist. Access the list of mentors at http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/researchandconsultancy/sa/newbid_support/tips/ to see if there is someone there you can contact. If you are applying for a studentship or fellowship and are required to attend an interview, you should seek advice from senior academics about probable interview questions or even organise a „dummy‟ interview. Collaboration Consider your expertise and ability to deliver this research. You may be able to enhance your application by collaborating with others. For example, if your project is important to industry, an industrial contribution will give your project more credibility. If you are working on a joint project it is useful to clarify roles and responsibilities early on. Who will be PI? Who will own any intellectual property? Who has first right to publish, and are there any commercial or confidentiality considerations to be taken into account? If external ethical approval is required how will this be managed? Research, Business and Innovation can provide advice on protecting intellectual property and confidentiality agreements.


9

Partners A collaborative FP7 project must involve at least three different partners from three different Member States/Associated Countries. Try to ensure a good geographic spread, while avoiding „token‟ partners. Invite partners to join your consortium only on the basis of scientific excellence. It is best to work with partners you already know/have worked with before. Provide evidence of partners‟ reputation and quality. Partners‟ activities should be complementary, and not duplicate; attempt to ensure that all key stakeholders are involved e.g. SMEs, private sector and end-users such as patient groups. All partners should have a defined role – sleeping partners are not acceptable, and you should make sure that your choice of partners allows all parts of the work to be covered. You may also find it useful to use the “Partner Search” facility on the UKRO website (http://www.ukro.ac.uk/ (see Page 7), or on the European Commission‟s Research & Development Information Service, CORDIS. The CORDIS partner search can be accessed from: http://cordis.europa.eu/partners-service/home_en.html In addition, some funds operate their own partner search mechanisms. There is no limit on the budget for managing a consortium in FP7; however, it will still need to be justified and reasonable. It is a good idea to produce consortia agreements, even though they are only mandatory in some programmes. It is best to have a co-ordinator who has previous experience in co-ordinating transnational projects. You also need to ensure that there are sufficient travel funds for co-ordination and management meetings between partners as well as scientific meetings, particularly if you are managing any part of the project.

Proposal Style and Presentation Make the purpose of your project clear at the very beginning. Ensure the title of the project properly reflects the proposed research because it will set the first impression and help determine which review committee your proposal will be forwarded to and the reviewers to be used. Bear in mind that referees and grants panels will probably have a considerable number of proposals to read and although referees are experts in the field, they may not be expert in the specific areas of your research. Keep your proposal simple so that a generalist in your area of research can understand it. Do not be tempted to cram everything you would like to say into the space available. Choose your problem, articulate it clearly, accurately and thoroughly and do not deviate from it. Read the application instructions carefully and follow them exactly. Pay due attention to the stated criteria for success. Adhere to the guidelines for presentation, including margin and font size, number of pages and copies. Include an accurate table of contents and use headings and page numbers. It is useful to print the guidelines off and use them as a final check. Try to keep the number of main aims to a maximum of five. Sentences should be short and succinct, with clear subheadings and key points highlighted in bold type. Diagrams and figures, where appropriate, are useful for putting your point across and help to break up text. Try to avoid abbreviations, acronyms and jargon. The abstract or summary is crucial. If a referee does not understand your proposal after reading the abstract s/he is not likely to give it a good score. The abstract should be specific and concise and not go into the technical detail on aspects of the proposal that should be further clarified later. Write the abstract when your proposal is finished and then ask a non-specialist to read it – if parts are unclear, rewrite them.


10

Try to put your enthusiasm for the project into your writing, but be focused and do not get too carried away with the fine details of the research. You need to ooze confidence; subjunctives like 'may', 'might' and 'could' should be avoided. Your proposal should be outcome orientated, so think carefully about what you intend to achieve. Use the active rather than passive voice: if you do not come across as believing in the project, you will not convince the referees. Ask a colleague/friend or trusted Research Administrator to check your spelling and grammar and to make sure you have used plain language.

Impact The main aim of considering the impact of your research is to demonstrate that you have thought about where your research sits within the academic field and the broader society. The impact of your project can take many forms, not just financial or commercial. The Research Councils expect this. Remember to be imaginative! More detailed guidance on demonstrating impact can be found in Chapter 5 or on the Research Council website at http://impacts.rcuk.ac.uk/default.htm.

Dissemination Your chosen funding body will want assurance that your findings will be disseminated where they will have the greatest impact on the advancement of knowledge and/or influence on society, or improvements to the environment, or health care. Therefore you should give careful thought to your communication strategy which should be incorporated into your application. Think about who your stakeholders are: your research peers; user groups; communities; industry; the public sector; the media; and wider society and address them and their concerns. You should also investigate the funding body‟s stance on Open Access publication, and, if applicable, ensure that your published results are freely available on Northumbria Research Link, the University‟s digital repository of its research (See Chapter 11).


11

4. COSTING RESEARCH PROPOSALS When costing your research you need to distinguish between the full cost of undertaking the research and the price received for undertaking it. For research, the way work is priced will depend upon a range of factors including the funding methodology of the research sponsors, or simply that which the commercial market can bear. In some cases the difference between cost and price will result in the University partly subsidising the research. For example, Research Councils may pay a proportion of the total cost of doing the research set at 80%, while Northumbria subsidises the remaining 20%. In other cases the price at which the service is contracted may be higher than the full cost. The potential for full or good cost recovery is only one aspect of the Dean‟s and DVC‟s strategic decision about whether or not to apply for a particular research grant. Each School‟s Dean will balance the recovery rate with other benefits such as academic reputation, long-term benefits, potential partnerships, publication rights, use of results and REF-related income. Very few funders pay the Full Economic Cost (fEC) of doing research (See Full Economic Costing FAQs, below). The Research Councils pay 80% of fEC, and most government departments are following this lead but you need to check the particular department and programme. There was an intention to move towards 100% „overtime‟, from 2010, but this has not been agreed. Charities do not pay the fEC, but it may be possible to apply for more individual direct costs, such as facilities usage. Industrial funders should be encouraged to pay in full but that is subject to negotiation and what the market can bear. Completing a Costing For assistance with costing and pricing your research, initially contact your Research Administrator, the Research Support team or Management Accounts (Finance). When completing a costing you need to take into account everything that you are likely to need to undertake your research – and then check which of these your funder will pay for. Under fEC, costs fall into the categories of: Directly Incurred: costs are directly attributable to the project and would not be incurred if it did not go ahead, for example research assistant salary, equipment. Directly Allocated: costs that can be allocated to the project where it draws upon those resources, e.g. Principal Investigator time, lab space, technician time. Indirect Costs: are not directly attributable to research projects but are still incurred. They include costs such as the Library and central services such as HR, Finance etc that provide the infrastructure without which the research could not go ahead. The following elements should be considered when costing a research proposal: Staff Costs Northumbria‟s Finance and Planning Department has developed an online „costing tool‟ which is available to all staff via a structured training programme. The costing tool provides up-to-date staff costs taking in to account the school overhead rate; it can work out rates over various periods including day rates. You will need to include the total cost of employing a member of staff for the duration of the project and should include: basic salary, yearly increments, Employer‟s National Insurance contribution and Employer‟s superannuation contribution. Your School‟s Research Administrator (see Appendix 4) can work out the staff costs for you, using the costing tool, but you will need to provide them with: start and end dates; duration; the percentage of time you want each person to work on the project; and the staff grades of the various staff you want to work on the project.


12

Make sure you include the costs of all staff on your project, for example: Existing academic staff Research Assistants or other research staff Administrative support Technical support Project studentships Replacement teaching costs Consultancy rates Student costs: when costing a student include tuition fees and stipend. Some Funders have a fixed contribution towards these costs. The University‟s schedule of tuition fees can be obtained from the Graduate School. Non-Staff Direct Costs Travel and subsistence When costing travel try to make your figures as accurate as possible by getting estimates: Subsistence - check the Funder‟s rates or use the University rates. Rail fares –National Rail Enquiries 08457 484950 http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ Flight fares – get scheduled flight costs from a common/worldwide provider such as British Airways.

Remember: always use standard fares as you may not be able to get the discounted fares when you want to travel; always include rail/ taxi transfers from the airport where possible; always use the safest and most appropriate form of travel. Consumables Consumables include items such as printer paper, postage, stationery, lab supplies, photocopying, and computer supplies. Different sponsors have different guidance on what consumables they will pay for. Many charities will only pay stationery and postage if it is central to the methodology eg, for a survey. Research Councils will fund consumables „auditable‟ to the research project. Dissemination costs These can include organising or attending a conference, publication costs (and open publication costs), website development or hosting. Research Councils will pay the additional cost of „open publication‟. Equipment For all equipment make sure you allow for associated costs linked to maintenance, insurance, installation, delivery and/or removal. Research Councils categorise equipment as over £3k, and will fund the remainder of any equipment over £50k at the full economic cost. Estates costs The costing tool will work out the estates costs for you. You need to identify how much of the project time will be spent using office or laboratory space, so the correct rate can be applied, e.g. 80/20 or 60/40, or 100% of either. Charitable funders will not fund estates costs. You can also include any charges for accessing specialised facilities within the University, or externally. Charities may pay these additional costs if integral to the research.


13

Indirect Costs Indirect costs are always incurred and are calculated by multiplying full time equivalent (FTE) on the project by the University‟s indirect rate (based on TRACS returns). Charities and some other sponsors will not pay for indirect costs. Inflation Some funders (e.g. Research Councils and the Wellcome Trust) will build inflation into your grant after it has been awarded. Other sponsors expect it to be built into your application before you submit. The University recommends a rate of 3.5% per year to cover inflation and to allow for future pay awards. Costing Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) proposals The grant, project duration and number of partners required for FP7 proposals can vary between programmes, and between calls; specific requirements will be detailed in the relevant work programme. FP7 works on co-financing, i.e. the partners are expected to make a financial contribution. In addition, costs cannot include any profit. FP7 costs are eligible if they are: Actual Incurred by the beneficiary during the project Determined according to usual accounting and management principles Used solely for project objectives Consistent with principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness Recorded in the accounts Exclusive of non-eligible costs Audit costs. Ineligible FP7 Costs: Identifiable indirect taxes including VAT, airport taxes Duties: the amount assessed on an imported or (less often) exported item Interest owed Provisions for possible future losses or charges Exchange losses Cost related to return on capital Costs declared, incurred, or reimbursed in respect of another Community project (avoiding double funding ) Debt and debt service charges Excessive or reckless expenditure Salaries of people being trained (under training activities) Subcontracting of management activities PhD fees Value Added Tax (VAT) UK law makes University research exempt from VAT only when it is delivered to „eligible bodies‟ (i.e. UK further and higher education institutions, UK public bodies – including government departments, local authorities, health authorities, NHS trusts and not-for-profit charities.) Under previous EU Framework Programmes, any expenditure of VAT was not recoverable from the European Commission (EC) but could instead be recovered from UK Customs and Excise, ensuring that there was no loss incurred by the University. Under FP7, VAT will not be recoverable from either the EC or the UK Customs and Excise. The effect of this change is that Northumbria has no way of


14

recovering any expenditure of VAT on FP7 projects. This could impact on travel, consumables, or equipment. If supplying research via „contract‟ and if the customer is not an eligible body, then you should add VAT to the total price. If you are not including VAT in a price sent to a funder/sponsor, you should add the phrase „This cost excludes VAT – VAT is not normally payable on research by universities, for non-profit organisations, or public bodies.‟ When purchasing equipment for your project, note that medical equipment, or equipment to be used for medical research, is exempt from VAT. For additional advice on VAT, contact Christine Iceton, x3346 in the Finance and Planning Department. Full Economic Costing – Frequently Asked Questions What is full economic costing (fEC)? fEC is a method of calculating the actual costs of an activity. It was born out of the funding councils‟ „Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC)‟ as a way of increasing funding while making HEIs responsible for their own financial sustainability. TRAC data showed publicly-funded research to be a significantly under-funded activity, so fEC was introduced for research for all UK HEIs in September 2005, with the first fEC grants being awarded from April 2006. As well as any additional direct project costs (such as the salary of a research assistant, travel and consumables costs etc), fEC also includes the cost of academic staff time devoted to the project, estates costs - which vary depending on the type of department - and realistic indirect costs. What happens to all the information we provide in the TRAC Time Allocation Survey? This information is important in identifying what proportion of time academic staff spend on different activities (Research, Teaching, Other). For example, the proportion of time each person spends on research is used to calculate the full-time equivalent (FTE) number of research-active staff in the University; this figure is then used to determine the indirect and estates rate on a per FTE basis. What is financial sustainability? The definition of sustainability from the TRAC Overview (June 2005) is: “An institution is being managed on a sustainable basis if, taking one year with another, it is recovering its full economic costs across its activities as a whole, and is investing in its infrastructure … at a rate adequate to maintain its future productive capacity...” It also offers an alternative, simpler definition “..the institution needs to do the activity today in a way which will not threaten its ability to do it in future.” It is therefore not sufficient to balance the books while carrying on current activities, at the same time the institution must be able to maintain its infrastructure and employ enough staff to allow such activity to continue in the future. How is the full economic cost of a project worked out? At Northumbria we use the Finance and Planning Department‟s Costing Tool (see „Staff Costs, page 12) to calculate the fEC. Staff salaries and on-costs are entered into the model from the Payroll database, we use actual costs rather than averages. Indirect and Estates costs are established through automatic calculations, based on hourly rates determined in a separate system and entered into the model. Can I still apply for funding from organisations which won’t pay the fEC – like charities? Yes, you can. There is no intention at the moment to try to restrict the type of funders to which researchers apply. Do I still need to work out the full economic cost even if I know that the funder won’t agree to pay it? Yes, you do. Some funders, while not prepared to pay the fEC, are interested to know the full cost. Aside from that, as a University we have a responsibility to calculate the full cost of our research activity across all departments so that over time we can move to a position of financial sustainability across all activity areas (this can include consultancy, other services, spin out activities, etc, as well as research).


15

Under fEC, are there any costs which are inadmissible? This is still a matter for each funder and inadmissible costs will usually be specified in their guidance for grant-holders. The Research Councils tend to meet all costs which can be justified as specific to the project, but they still say that „minor consumables‟ – such as paper, printing costs etc, are inadmissible. Research Councils will fund some of the cost of recruiting project staff, although any redundancy payments of research staff are inadmissible. Some government departments insist on having project finances examined by an external auditor, but the cost cannot come out of the project budget. The European Commission will not cover airport taxes or VAT for FP7 projects. Charities will not fund indirect or estates costs, or, usually, existing academic staff time, but they may meet the cost of using facilities. Can we apply full economic costing to studentships? If a company is funding a student, rather than a member of staff, to work on a defined project, you should apply fEC. Research Councils will not pay the fEC of a project studentship, but do pay maintenance and fees at 100% rather than 80% (however their rates for fees apply). Can we apply full economic costing to fellowships? Payment of the fEC depends on the funder. Fellowships will pay actual salary so members of academic staff will need to consult the \human Relations Department to learn their actual salary. Research Councils now pay the fEC of fellowships, reimbursing at the usual 80% rate. Some Royal Society fellowships will pay the fEC, but most charities will not. Consult individual funder guidelines. If a company wants to pay for some research work but won’t pay the full cost, will the University accept a lower price – can we negotiate? It is strongly recommended that we try to recover the fEC when charging commercial rates for research. We can go below but this will be queried by the Finance and Planning Department and highlighted when passed on to the DVC for approval. Can I charge more than the full economic cost if I think the market price for the work is higher than the cost, or if I think the funder will be willing to pay? Yes, you can and should charge a price over and above the cost for research where you are able, particularly when dealing with commercial bodies. You may find it better when dealing with such funders to quote a fixed price for the job, or a higher than-fEC daily rate – you do not need to itemise your costs for an industrial funder unless they ask you to. Consult Research, Business and Innovation for advice and support. If the Research Councils and some government departments are only paying 80% of fEC where will the missing 20% for my project’s direct costs come from? You will have 100% of your direct costs available to spend. The missing 20% is the University‟s own contribution to the work and will be partly funded out of the HEFCE QR (Quality Research) fund. Isn’t the University getting paid twice for academic salaries? Once through the block grant and again when we are claiming for academic time on grants – aren’t we double counting? No - in fact the University does not receive enough through the block grant for research to fully cover the cost of the relevant proportion of academic staff time devoted to research activity. The TRAC/fEC rules and the Research Councils insist that academic staff time must be included as a cost of research. How can academic staff estimate the time they will spend working on a project? You need to consider the various tasks that are performed as part of a research project: participating in and/or overseeing the project work; managing and supervising staff; writing technical reports (including the final report for Research Councils and other funders which require this); presenting findings at conferences and other dissemination work, etc. Think about how much time will be spent on each aspect and try to average this out as a number of hours per week. The amount of time to be spent will need to be justified to the Research Councils as part of the proposal. With the exception of European Commission FP 7 projects, you should not be required to keep timesheets for most funders. What do indirect costs include and how are they calculated? The indirect cost rate includes all University central costs, such as: the Library; computing; central administration including HR; support and administration in academic departments. Indirect costs are


16

based on a fixed rate which is updated annually on 1st February. Following TRAC guidelines, the rate is arrived at by collating all these costs as they relate to research activity in the previous financial year, indexing them, and dividing the total figure by the number of research-active academic and research staff in the University, to arrive at a flat rate per person. The number of research-active academic staff is arrived at by way of the time allocation survey which academic staff currently complete every three years. What do estates costs include and how are they calculated? The estates rate is calculated in the same way as indirect costs, but there are two different rates, depending on whether a department is designated as lab-based or not. Costs comprise space charges including energy costs, maintenance and depreciation of equipment, insurance, infrastructure charges, facilities costs, and pool or general laboratory technicians. What drives indirect and estates costs on projects? These costs are driven by the FTE academic and research staff per year on the project, i.e. it is based on staff time, not cost. As explained above, the indirect and estates rates are a per-person per year flat rate. So, if there is a full-time Research Assistant and 20% of academic staff time devoted to the project, the appropriate rates will be multiplied by 1.2 per project year. Multi-year projects will have indexation applied to the rates. How can we cost in the time of support staff such as technicians and administrative staff on Research Council projects? Pool technicians and other departmental support staff should be costed under Other Directly Allocated Costs. Unless the person is working on your project full-time (i.e. all of their working time) they will need to keep timesheets to show the amount of time spent on the project.


17

5. DEMONSTRATING IMPACT Background UK Research Councils require applications for standard grants and fellowship proposals to include an Impact Summary and Impact Plan addressing the potential impact of the proposed research. The Research Councils define impact as „the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy…Impact embraces all the extremely diverse ways in which research-related knowledge and skills benefit individuals, organisations and nations.‟ This new approach is a response to a government initiative that asks the Research Councils to prove the value for money invested in research. Timeframe of Impact The Research Councils recognise that the impact of a research project can occur at any stage during the project and even up to 30 years after its completion. When writing your application, it is very important to consider possible impact over an extended period of time. If the reviewers can think of a reasonable impact that you have missed out, it does not bode well for the success of your application. Types of Impact The main aim of considering the impact of your research is to demonstrate that you have thought about where your research sits within the academic field and the broader society. Here are some questions recommended by the Research Councils: What difference do you think the outcomes will make, and to whom? Commercial private sector? Policy makers? Local, regional, national, international government agencies? Museums? Charities? What science could it advance? What will change as a result of answering the questions you are posing in the research? Who might benefit? What could be done differently? Processes? Products? Schools? As you can see, the impact of your project can take many forms, not just financial or commercial. The Research Councils expect this. Remember to be imaginative! More detailed guidance on impact can be found on RCUK‟s website (http://impacts.rcuk.ac.uk/default.htm). It is highly recommended that you read the Research Council‟s guidance before submitting your application. Applications on Je-S (see Chapter 7) contain 3 sections that address the impact of your proposal. The Impact Summary This should briefly address the following questions: 1. Who will benefit from the research? List any beneficiaries, for example those who are likely to be interested in, or directly benefit from the proposed research both directly and indirectly. Beneficiaries must consist of a wider group than that of the investigator‟s immediate professional circle, and may therefore include: The commercial private sector Policy makers within international, national, local or devolved government and government agencies Public or third sector beneficiaries Beneficiaries within the wider public 2. How will they benefit? Describe the relevance of your research; explain how the research has the potential to impact on the nation‟s health, wealth or culture. What will these impacts be and what is their importance? Outline the realistic timescales for the benefits to be realised, along with the research and professional skills that project staff will develop that could be applied in all employment sectors.


18

3. What will be done to ensure that they will benefit? Include communication and engagement plans, plans for any exploitation, and collaboration arrangements. The Academic Beneficiaries In this section, you have up to 4,000 characters to describe how your research will impact upon the academic community. Consider researchers in your field within the UK and internationally. If appropriate, include researchers in other disciplines. Be sure to explain the relevance of your research. This could include collaborations, new methods, data, etc. This section is your opportunity to discuss the academic impact of your research. In the Impact Summary and Pathways to Impact, ensure that you include society as a whole. Pathways to Impact As part of your application, you will be required to write a Pathways to Impact document of not longer than two A4 pages. It should describe how potential impacts will be achieved and expand the impact summary. It is important to be specific and realistic. If you say you are going to achieve something, be sure to say how you are going to go about it. For example, do not say that you will publish in the „usual‟ journals or attend the „usual‟ conferences. Be specific! The Pathways to Impact is meant to be specific to users and beneficiaries of your research who are outside of the academic community. Be sure to address: Communication and engagement plans for the groups identified in the Impact Summary (examples may include: websites, media relations, events aimed at an audience, workshops, publications, etc). Collaborations and partnerships; how will they be managed? Did the relationship(s) already exist or was it created for the project? What contribution does it bring to the project? Exploitation and application; how will you identify and exploit your results? Capability; who will be undertaking the impact activities? The Principal Investigator? PhD students? Research Assistants? What experience do they have that will help achieve impact? How will they themselves benefit? The tips below are based on proposals received by EPSRC since impact summaries and plans were introduced in April 2009: they are general enough to apply to a proposal to any of the UK Research Councils. The impact plan needs to give more detail on activities outlined in the impact summary. Don‟t expand the impact summary just to fill up two pages. Ask for resources to carry out impact activities. Consider impacts on Research Assistants or project students. Be specific about dissemination. Involve partners/collaborators in impact activities.


19

6. INTERNAL APPROVAL PROCEDURES The Internal Authorisation Process Northumbria operates an internal authorisation process. All bids, regardless of value, that are submitted to an external funder must be approved via the authorisation process. When submitting your bid for approval, please ensure that costs are finalised and that a near-final version of the application is included. It is important to submit for approval everything that will be submitted to the funder. When your Research Administrator has completed the costs and application, they will send everything via Agresso to Research, Business and Innovation (RBI). The Research Administrator in your School can help you upload all information onto Agresso. RBI will check the bid to ensure that it complies with the funder‟s guidance. Following that, Finance will check the costs to ensure that they have been calculated correctly. Finally, the Dean of the School will authorise the bid and confirm that it may be submitted to the funder. The diagram below illustrates the bid authorisation process.

Agresso Agresso Award Management is a comprehensive system that effectively manages and monitors all externally funded projects at School and University level. Agresso can be accessed and used by all Northumbria Research Administrators, to: gain internal approval from Finance & Planning, RBI and the relevant Dean for the project to be submitted; record costs, staff and other project details; save and store electronic copies of bids, contracts and project-related materials.


20

Microsoft Sharepoint functionality allows Agresso users to securely store any document type associated with a project – this may include the original bid, project plans, project logs, proposals and contracts. Agresso also provides valuable management information to Schools and the University Executive and allows RBI staff to access information on externally funded projects, saving time for project teams. Gaining Ethical Approval Northumbria University strives to ensure that ethical standards are maintained in research by and through the University. Schools, on behalf of the University, are responsible for ensuring that all students and staff conducting research, and all research conducted on staff, students, and premises is in accordance with the University ethical standards. University policies and further information on research ethics and governance can be found at: http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/researchandconsultancy/sa/ethgov/ The University Research Ethics Committee working group have developed a simple flowchart (see page 24) to indicate the level of ethical scrutiny that might be required for your project. Once you have ascertained the required level of ethical scrutiny, you should follow the ethical guidance as set out by your School, and if necessary complete any ethical approval processes. As part of the ethical approval process you will need to review the indemnity arrangements for your project. Research Projects and Indemnity Unless a research project can be described as a „clinical trial‟, the University‟s Public Liability policy will provide cover for claims for personal injury or damage to third party property, as a result of negligence for which the University is legally liable. There will be no need to seek clarification of cover unless the research project can be described as a clinical trial, which is defined by the University‟s Insurers as „an investigation or series of investigations conducted on any person for a medicinal purpose, meaning: Treating or preventing disease Diagnosing disease or ascertaining the existence, degree or extent of a physiological or psychological condition Assisting with or altering in any way the process of conception or participating in methods of contraception Inducing anaesthesia Otherwise preventing or interfering with the normal operation of a physiological condition Some „low hazard‟ clinical trials are, however, exempt from the exclusions of the policy and so can be covered under the Public Liability policy. These involve one or more of the following: The insertion of needles into a patient‟s veins for the purpose of withdrawing blood samples The measurement of physiological processes using non-invasive methods The administration by mouth of foods or variation of diet other than the administration of drugs or food supplements The collection of body secretions and excretions by non-invasive methods for analysis The use of tissue samples that would otherwise be disposed of subject to: 1. Informed consent being obtained in all cases 2. Disposal of such tissue in an approved manner 3. Such tissue material not having been obtained in connection with any other clinical trial covered by the Policy If your research project is deemed to be a clinical trial, and does not fall under the definition of a „low hazard‟ clinical trial, then full details of the project should be passed to the University‟s Insurance Brokers, Robertson McIsaac Insurance Brokers Ltd, who will liaise with our insurers to obtain the necessary cover.


21

Clinical trials which are excluded from the Public Liability cover, and would require additional cover include: Large scale trials involving more than 1,000 research subjects Trials involving children under 5 years of age Genetic trials for non-medical purposes Trials involving conception or contraception Trials involving pregnant women Trials involving research subjects who are resident outside Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man Trials where the substance under investigation has been designed and/or manufactured by the University If your research involves one or more of the above, please contact Robertson McIsaac on 0191 212 1234 for further advice. The Research Passport Scheme Northumbria is part of a regional group of universities, NHS Trusts and Clinical Research Networks who have signed up to use the new national Research Passport Scheme, which came into effect in September 2009. The Scheme will allow staff engaging in research within the NHS to only require one set of CRB and Occupational Health checks before they can be issued with a „passport‟ which will allow them access into other Trusts. This should ensure a clearer and more efficient process in order to improve access for NHS research in the region. The University policy and processes are currently being finalised by the HR Department and will be published shortly on the University website and in future editions of the Handbook.


22

Flowchart to Determine Level of Ethical Scrutiny

University Research Ethics Committee approval if needed

Does your research involve any of the following?

        

External approval or registration with relevant body

Medicinal Products Clinical trial Human tissue Animal subjects Vulnerable people including children

Yes

RED

NHS staff, patients, premises or equipment

School Research Ethics Committee approval

START PROJECT

Sensitive subjects such as trauma Forensic issues

Insurance requirements

Safety concerns for researcher or participants

No

Does your research involve?

   

People Personal data of a living individual Environmental issues

Yes

AMBER

Commercially sensitive information

No

GREEN

School Research Ethics Committee approval

Go ahead with project – notify School and comply with relevant advice


START PROJECT

START PROJECT

23

7. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Many funders now prefer electronic submission. For some, this involves sending an attachment by email and following this up with the original and a number of further hard copies. However, UK Research Councils, some of the charities and many American funders have now developed electronic systems that allow secure online development and final submission. Currently the main electronic systems are Je-S, which is used by most of the Research Councils, eGap, used by the Royal Society and the Wellcome Trust, grants.gov, which is used by United States government departments and EPSS, which is used for submitting Framework Programme proposals. Submission through Je-S Setting up a Je-S account There are two types of accounts on Je-S: registered and basic accounts. Those who intend to work on projects as investigators must have a registered account. To get an account you need to complete the online form agreeing to the terms and conditions. Once you have completed and submitted your form the Je-S helpdesk will contact the Research Support Office in Research, Business and Innovation to verify your details, and once verification is complete send you an e-mail confirming that your account has been accepted. To create a Je-S account, go to: https://jes.rcuk.ac.uk/JeS2WebLoginSite/Login.aspx. The screen shots over the next few pages will illustrate the steps you need to take.

Select Create an Account – this will take you to the Je-S Terms and Conditions page


24

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you have the choice to Accept or Not Accept; choose „Accept‟ to continue the registration process.

Select the criteria that apply to you.

…continue to enter your personal details on the following page.


25

Select Organisation and Department

Complete all the required details on the Account Set-up form then press „next step.‟ Your details will then be sent to the organisation for verification. Once they have been confirmed by the organisation the Je-S helpdesk will accept your request and you will be sent an email to confirm the account has been accepted. Creating a new document on Je-S To create a new grant application, go to the document menu. Beneath the document list select „add new document.‟

Select the funder, the type of document, and the funding scheme from the drop down boxes. Then select the grey bar, „Create document.‟


26

The document created contains one column for the content of the proposal. All of the document actions (including submitting and adding people to view your application) are found under the Document Actions tab to the right of the main column. This Document Actions tab can allow the user to give access rights to others (either Research Administrators [RAs] to add costs etc or Co-Investigators [Co-Is] from other institutions); it allows you to see who worked on the document last, print copies, validate or submit the document. When populating the „document data‟, you can cut and paste from Microsoft Word. You need to check the „character count‟ at the bottom of each section to ensure your document length is within the stated allowance: if it isn‟t, it will be cut. The resource summary (below) categorises the costs into the four Research Council categories of „Directly Incurred‟, „Directly Allocated‟, „Indirect‟ and „Exceptions‟.


27

Under Je-S, the project details are completed on the electronic form and the case for support and other documents (CVs, letters of support, Justification of Resources) are attached as word or PDF documents. Below is advice on some of the attachments and a Je-S „ready reckoner‟ to see what each research council will expect with each Je-S form. Required Je-S attachments 1. Impact From April 2009, all UK Research Councils require applicants to consider the issue of the potential impact of the research. The Councils define impact as „the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy…Impact embraces all the extremely diverse ways in which research-related knowledge and skills benefit individuals, organisations and nations.‟ For Je-S purposes, each Council requires the Impact attachment to be a maximum of 2 sides of A4, font size 11. (See also Chapter 5, „Demonstrating Impact,) 2. Work plans Timelines, Gantt charts, or PERT work-plans are requested as PDF or word attachments:

PERT Work-plan

Gant Chart


28

3. Justification of Resources on Full Economic Costed applications Since the introduction of Full Economic Costing (fEC) models, the Justification of Resources (JoR) has become even more important. Research Councils have emphasised that they will cut investigator time that is insufficiently justified, and will also cut any items that are not properly justified. It is strongly recommended that resources requested are justified under the headings that appear on the application form under „Summary of Resources Requested‟. If investigators identify and justify their costs following this format it is much easier for reviewers and Research Council staff to match the justification against the costs on the form. For a JeS form these would be:

Justification of Resources Directly Incurred Costs, including: Staff Research Assistant(s) to be employed on the project, and any other staff whose time is devoted to the grant or whose input to the grant is auditable by timesheets. (For example, an administrator who has a contract for 50% of time, all of which is to be charged to the grant. In this case it would be worth pointing out that they spend all of their contracted hours on the grant, as otherwise the funder may query the DI status, leading to delays while we respond.) Equipment Must be over £3,000, including VAT. Travel & Subsistence In the Travel and Subsistence section state who is going where – have you costed just for the Principal Investigator (PI) to travel or for the Co-Investigator (Co-I) or the Research Assistant (RA), or a combination of these? Try to name the likely conferences in the JoR if you can. Consumables Anything which is auditable, i.e. showing as a direct cost to the project, for example by external invoice. The Research Councils have now agreed that goods from a central store can be costed as directly incurred, as long as there is a direct, auditable, paper trail to the individual project. These can be items of equipment worth less than £3,000. In the Small Equipment/Consumables section put the cost of each in brackets along with the justification, especially if the costs are not broken down in the application form. Do this for the larger equipment costs too, as it is always good for a reviewer to be able to easily match items on the JoR against the application form. Directly Allocated Costs, including: Investigators PI and Co-I time input and the role each individual will play/skills they will each bring to the project – this is vital and is new with fEC. (This is particularly important where there are several Co-Is from the same department – it is essential to justify each one‟s involvement in the project). Only academic equivalent staff can act as Co-I – this equivalence is not grade-related but more to do with the duties they carry out (i.e. they should have some element of teaching and tutoring). Try to be explicit about the need for the level of investigator time sought, bearing in mind the complexity of the research, the need to manage the project and supervise staff and any wider considerations such as collaboration or facilities usage. You should justify PI and Co-I time along the lines of the following worked example: If we have asked for 330 hours per year (7.5 hrs/week) this will consist of x hours supervising the RA; x hours on experimental design and data analysis; x hours on project management; x hours on research governance; x hours attending conferences; x hours preparing presentations, publications and final report; obviously the breakdown and detail varies from project to project. Or you might not put in the actual number of hours per year on each type of activity but produce a list of activities that require considerable time from the PI and Co-I, such as: supervise the RA; write papers; attend conferences; observe research governance, etc.


29

Other Directly Allocated Costs These fall into one of four categories and are based on estimates rather than an auditable invoice trail: Project Specific Costs – this would include portions of staff charged to the project whose time is not auditable through timesheets (e.g. 5% of a technician). If this includes staff on Academic related grades you should point this out as otherwise the funder may query the level of Estates & Indirects (which apply to these grades but not to technical and administrative staff). General Technical Services – may be a contribution towards departmental pooled staff whose time input is less specific than Project Specific Costs. Research Facilities – e.g. use of facility such as a microscopy unit. Costs will be based on an estimate and there is no external invoice to provide an audit trail. Other – anything that doesn‟t fit into the above, such as consumable items for which there will be no paper trail (either by invoice or internally). It is particularly important to identify and justify each cost item, including those entered in „Other Directly Allocated‟, as otherwise the funder will simply cut them. (NB: Estates and Indirect costs do not require justification)

4.

BBSRC Case for Support Part 1B

The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Case for Support Part 1B is a statement on data sharing (maximum of one side of A4) which should set out how applicants will comply with BBSRC‟s published Data Sharing Policy. The policy, and detailed guidance notes, can be viewed at http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/support/guidelines/Welcome.html. Comprehensive data sharing plans will be expected, in particular, in the „data sharing areas‟ highlighted in the policy. More succinct plans may be appropriate for applications outside of these areas. Data sharing plans may include details of: Data areas and data types - the volume, type and content of data that will be generated e.g. experimental measurements, records and images. Standards and metadata - the standards and methodologies that will be adopted for data collection and management, and why these have been selected. Relationship to other data available in public repositories. Secondary use - further intended and/or foreseeable research uses for the completed dataset(s). Methods for data sharing - planned mechanisms for making these data available, e.g. through deposit in existing public databases or on request, including access mechanisms where appropriate. Proprietary data - any restrictions on data sharing due to the need to protect proprietary or patentable data. Timeframes - timescales for public release of data. Format of the final dataset. Applicants may claim justifiable costs associated with data sharing activities, which should be captured in the application proforma and in the Justification of Resources statement. This page should be used only for the statement on data sharing. If no statement is required, enter „No Data Sharing Statement Required‟. IMPORTANT - Any information included other than that relating to data sharing statement requirements, as prescribed above, will result in your application being rejected. Only one statement is required per project. Research: From Finding Funding to Final Report

30

Submission Through EPSS For all Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) calls, full electronic submission using EPSS (the Electronic Proposal Submission System) is obligatory. Therefore, you should become familiar with the electronic submission procedures (EPSS) used for FP7. See the call text for information on the submission method. To use EPSS, you will also need to register in advance in order to receive a user name and password, specific to each call and each proposal. For this and other reasons it is vital that you read the relevant guidance documentation submission under each relevant activity area. To access EPSS go to the relevant call page in FP7: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm FP7 submission is electronic and only the co-ordinator can press “submit”. However, the co-ordinator arranges for all partners to receive passwords, for them to complete their sections. If you are the coordinator, arrange your passwords early and practise using EPSS. Do not leave submission until the deadline day, as any I.T failure will mean that you cannot submit your proposal. You can submit early versions of the proposal as it is possible to over-write previous versions, up to the deadline itself.


31

8. PROPOSAL EVALUATION Research Council Evaluation Research Council proposals are assessed by national and international academic experts. Some Councils use peer review colleges, others, standing boards or committees. All Councils use the primary criteria of research excellence for assessing proposals. Other factors which may be taken into consideration include: strategic relevance; scientific potential and impact; UK and international collaboration; level of risk; timeliness and value for money. Peer reviewers grade grant applications to generate a ranked list, to enable decisions to be made on which applications should be funded, as well as ensuring that ranking criteria have been consistently and fairly applied and agreeing feedback to applicants. Some rank proposals from 10 (outstanding) to 0 (resubmit) and others rank from alpha + (outstanding) to Beta (not worthy of funding).

EU Framework Programme Evaluation The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) evaluation process is outlined in each guide for proposers. For example, for FP7 collaborative research, there are three evaluation criteria: excellence, implementation and impact (see table below). The FP7 abstract is the first impression which an evaluator will get of your proposal and may influence their subsequent interpretation of what they read. Many evaluators are now wise to the “pepper-pot” approach of scattering buzzwords in text, and they tend to prefer clarity. Proposals need to enable evaluators to understand the project‟s costing and content quickly and easily. Common Evaluation Criteria for a Collaborative FP7 Project Excellence Soundness and quality of objectives

Implementation Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures

Progress beyond state-ofthe-art

Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants

Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan

Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)

Impact Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic/activity Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property

The threshold score for each criterion is 3 marks out of 5, with an overall threshold of 10/15. However, different programmes and calls can have different individual and overall thresholds. In reality though, the European Commision rarely has enough money to fund all of the proposals which exceed the threshold, so proposers should aim to score 4 or more in each section to maximise their chances of success.


32

Success Rates As the chart below shows, the rate of successful applications to Research Councils has generally fallen in recent years. The chart shows that, in general, current applications to UK Research Councils have around a one-in-five chance of being funded. The Leverhulme Trust‟s published application success rate for 2005 was similar, at 20%. FP7 success rates vary between programmes and between calls. The current range is 13% 28%. Charities do not normally publish their success rates but will advise you of success rates with particular streams of funding.

Unsuccessful Research Council Bids If your application is unsuccessful you should not be discouraged - competition is fierce and some proposals are turned down because the funder cannot give the theme priority even though the proposal is well thought out and presented. However, learn from your experience and try to find out why your application failed by contacting the programme manager. If you are passionate about your project, analyse possible reasons for failure, get support to refine your proposal and try again after six months. With any resubmission, demonstrate clearly and effectively that you have taken comments into consideration. You may have to provide a covering letter explaining the application is a resubmission - check the guidance. Unsuccessful FP7 Bids If your FP7 application is unsuccessful, and the evaluation summary report shows that the project scored well, it can be worthwhile looking out for another suitable FP7 call to submit too. Your proposal may need some modification to meet the new call, but you do have evaluators‟ comments to build upon. Bear in mind though that the proposal will be evaluated by a different set of evaluators the next time.


33

Successful Research Proposals If you are successful an award letter may be sent to you, to the Research Support Office or to the Finance and Planning Department. It is important that you notify your School Research Administrator of the outcome of your proposal so that they can update the project on Agresso, which will inform the Research Office and Finance and Planning Department. Some awards require paper acceptance, others do not and some research council awards can be accepted via the Je-S system. If you are the Co-ordinator on a successful FP7 proposal the European Commission will send a Grant Preparation Form to the Finance Director. Finance staff will set up an account to manage your project award once the PI has completed a Project Set Up form and sent it to them - the form is on the website at http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/central/finance/manacc. If you need to recruit staff you will need to consult the recruitment policy and contact the nominated HR manager for your School. The HR recruitment policy can be found at http://northumbria.ac.uk/researchandconsultancy/sa/manpro/


34

9. SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME (FP7) POST-AWARD ACTIVITY Project Reporting Co-ordinators must submit an interim/final report within 60 days of the end of the period covered by the report. You should use the Euro rate published in the Official Journal of the European Union, from the day after the reporting period finishes. These reports should include a: Progress report Financial statement (Form C) – there is a different one for each funding scheme. Reports are by partner and per activity type e.g.: Research and Technical Development, demonstration, management, other. Also show the total costs and the maximum European Commission (EC) contribution, and any receipts. Distribution of the Community Financial Contribution (if a Co-ordinator) Certificate on the Financial Statement (i.e.: audit certificate)

Obtaining the Money If you are the Co-ordinator, you will need to ensure that any pre-financing/other payments paid to you by the EC are paid out to partners quickly – normally in line with the payment schedule described in the Consortium Agreement. Projects cannot receive more than 85% during their project lifetime. UKRO has provided the following advice on pre-financing: Single pre-financing paid at the start of the project 10% of EC contribution is always retained by the Commission 5% retained for Guarantee Fund (see example below) , also part of pre-financing and immediately subtracted Paid to Co-ordinator once the minimum number of participants have acceded to the Grant Agreement and only paid to those that have acceded in full For projects of 1 to 2 reporting periods, pre-financing could be 60-80% of total EC contribution For projects of more than two reporting periods, pre-financing will equal 160% of the average funding per period Circumstances of project can influence this e.g. loading of expenditure Pre-financing remains the property of the Commission until the last payment Pre-financing – Worked Example Example: A three-year project (with annual reporting) with €3,000,000 EC contribution Average EC contribution per reporting period: €3,000,000 / 3yrs = €1,000,000 Pre-financing (usually 160% of €1,000,000) mentioned in Article 6= €1,600,000 Contribution to Guarantee Fund at 5% of total EC Contribution: 3,000,000 x 5% = €150,000 Net amount transferred to Co-ordinator: (€1,600,000 – €150,000) = €1,450,000


35

Payments – Worked Example (All direct costs are claimed on the basis of reimbursement, regardless of the organisation.) A three-year project (with annual reporting) with total €3,000,000 EC contribution Maximum payments during project = 85% of total = 2,550,000 (as 5% retained for Guarantee Fund and 10% retained by EC) Payment

Amount received

Pre- financing As per pervious €1,450,000 example 1st reporting period

EC contribution accepted € 900,000

2nd reporting EC contribution period accepted € 900,000

Final report

EC contribution accepted € 1,200,000

1st Interim payment €900,000

Cumulative amount received to date €1,450,000 €2,350,000

2nd Interim payment €2,550,000 € 200 000 (due to retention – since can not go above cumulative total of €2,550,000) Final payment € 450,000 €3,000,000 (= the total EC contribution accepted over the whole project minus the cumulative amount received so far)

Audit You will need to keep the time-sheet and travel expenses documentation for up to five years after your project finishes, to support the audit, and any subsequent audits. Timesheets Only your actual hours worked can be claimed. All staff involved in the project must keep monthly timesheets, even if they are spending 100% of their time on the project. The timesheets should detail the work on the project, and summarise the time spent on other non-FP7 project work. The subject of the timesheet must sign it, along with their immediate line manager. Travel Expenses/receipts/invoices You will need to set up a project file and keep copies of all receipts, travel expenses, hotel bills, flight bookings, and invoices charged to the project. Auditors also like to see minutes of meetings as proof of attendance. Auditors will check the claims made on Form C, and provide a Certificate on the Financial Statement when the cumulative amount of payments is equal to/more than €375,000. Otherwise, audits are not required, even at the end of a project. For projects lasting two years or less, this certificate only needs to be submitted for claims on final payments when the requested grant is equal to/more than €375,000. Your project management costs will need to cover the audit costs. Auditors will look at staff costs, other direct costs, exchange rates, receipts, interest on pre-financing and sub-contracting costs.


36

10. THE FINAL REPORT Once a project has been completed you are required to complete a Final Report. The Final Report has two main purposes: to provide a statement of expenditure of your grant for accountability requirements; and to measure the output of your project by making a preliminary judgement of its quality and impact against the original objectives. The Final Report may be submitted electronically or on paper. The Finance and Planning Department will liaise with the Principal Investigator (PI) to complete the financial element of the form, with details of the project expenditure for the period of the project. Depending on the format of the funder‟s final report, Finance & Planning will arrange for signatures and despatch, or electronically submit, the Report. Electronic Submission The UK Research Councils prefer to use the Je-S system for electronic submission. Registered users of Je-S can complete the pre-filled form and submit it online. The narrative report is attached either as a Word or PDF file. Signatures are not needed for electronic submission. Before the end of the project, UK Research Councils send partially pre-filled forms, including self-assessment forms, to the PI. Check what your funder requires and mark the date for the Final Report deadline. Signatures may be required for paper copies, from the PI and the University‟s authorised financial signatory. Whether you submit a hard copy or electronic Final Report, there will be strict format requirements such as number of pages, page length etc. Check carefully what is expected. Once submitted, the Final Report will be assessed by peer review. This will involve an assessment of the research rated against a number of evaluation criteria. The criteria are different for different types of awards, so you will need to check the guidance but they may include: Research quality Research planning and practice Potential scientific impact Quality of training and experience provided Communication of research outputs Potential benefits to society Cost effectiveness Using the criteria selected, the funding body will award an overall grade. These vary depending on the funder and the funding scheme. Below are examples of two Research Councils‟ grading systems.

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) final report grading definitions Criteria Research quality, research planning & practice, potential scientific impact

Output of research staff, communication of research outputs, potential benefits to society, cost effectiveness

Score 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

Definition Internationally leading Tending to internationally leading National Standing Tending to satisfactory Unsatisfactory Outstanding Tending to Outstanding Good Tending to unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory


37

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Grade Definitions Outstanding (O) High quality research making an important contribution to the development of the subject. An outstanding grade indicates that a project has fully met its objectives and has provided an exceptional research contribution well above average or very high in relation to the level of the award.

Good (G)

Good quality research making a useful contribution to the development of the subject. A good grade indicates a project whose research activities and contribution is fully commensurate with the level of the award, approach and subject area, and which has addressed its major objectives.

Problematic (P)

Acceptable research but with problems or weaknesses in the design, method, analysis or outcomes. A problematic grade indicates a project which has failed to address one or more of its major objectives, has encountered significant difficulties in the execution of the project, has incomplete work, or has achieved substantially less than expected for the level of the award, the approach or the subject area.

Unacceptable (U) Research poorly conducted with unreliable results, or report with insufficient details on which to base a satisfactory judgement. An unacceptable grade indicates a project which has failed to conduct the work as agreed at the time of the award (and any subsequent agreed changes to the work plan); for example failure to conduct agreed surveys or analyses, or failure to address most of the major objectives.


38

11. RESEARCH OUTPUTS: NORTHUMBRIA RESEARCH LINK Background Ensuring that the results of research supported by public funds are made accessible and available for consultation by the research community and others is an integral part of the research process. It involves a partnership between all players involved (universities and other employers of researchers, funders, publishers, libraries, as well as researchers themselves). Research Councils, in seeking to maximise the impact of their investment in maintaining and improving the research base, and increasing the contribution it makes to the benefit of the UK‟s society and economy, expect ideas and knowledge derived from publicly-funded research to be made available and accessible for public use, interrogation, and scrutiny, as widely, rapidly and effectively as practicable. Northumbria Research Link Northumbria Research Link (NRL) is the University‟s digital repository of research. Housed in a discrete website (http://northumbria.openrepository.com/northumbria/), the collection is freely available to students and researchers worldwide. The outputs housed in the repository include journal articles, conference papers, books, book chapters, exhibitions, radio and television outputs, and theses. Managed by a cross-University Steering Group, and working to national standards and guidelines, NRL benefits Northumbria in a number of ways: It will increase the visibility and readership of the University‟s research outputs, whilst respecting any copyright agreements entered into by our authors It will help to preserve intellectual output by centrally co-ordinating and managing the storage and retrieval of institutional assets Global open access to Northumbria‟s research will promote University branding and raise the profile of individual researchers It will assist in research management and assessment – particularly in the collation of the national Research Excellence Framework (REF) It is a platform for information and data sharing which will help to facilitate research It will enable the University to comply more easily with the open access requirements of research funders The Vice-Chancellor‟s Executive Group has therefore approved a policy that requests staff to deposit details of their published research and other REF–related research outputs with NRL, at the point of publication / performance / exhibition, unless there are circumstances which would preclude such open publication. Where open publication is not possible, for example for reasons of confidentiality, details should still be notified to NRL and the work will be stored in a secure section. Where possible, an electronic copy of the publication / output should be submitted. Library and Learning Services (LLS) will check copyright permissions with authors and publishers and will, where permitted, include the full text of publications in the repository; otherwise a bibliographic record of the publication / output will be created, with links to the published material. Non-published outputs, such as performances, artefacts and video output, will be stored in an appropriate multi-media file format such as PDF or JPEG, and it is important that guidance is sought from LLS in order that such outputs are properly recorded. It should be noted that failure to deposit work in the repository may preclude such work from inclusion in the forthcoming REF, as NRL will become the de facto record of output.


39

Submitting Research Outputs to NRL Copyright Before submitting to NRL, you need to retain the intellectual property in that work, or have permissions from the rights holder(s) to archive the work. Permissions must be obtained for all third party materials used. If you have already published in a journal you may have assigned some rights to a third party. This does not necessarily mean that it cannot be included in NRL. Library staff will check copyright permissions for you. Some publishers will allow authors to archive their work in repositories. Some will allow the use of the final published version, whilst others will allow deposit of the author‟s final peer-reviewed version – perhaps after an embargo period – but not allow deposit of the final published version. Library staff will contact you if a different version is required other than the one you have sent for submission. Submission Procedure 1. Read the Northumbria Research Link Deposit Licence and ensure that you are willing to allow the Repository Administrator to grant this licence/complete the agreement section in the Deposit Submission Form on your behalf. 2. Complete and submit the online Deposit Submission Form. The Deposit Submission Form should contain as many bibliographic details as possible, of the work you wish to deposit e.g. a journal article should include the following information: Author(s) Title of article Page numbers (where known) Year, volume and issue Journal Title Publisher ISSN (if known) DOI (Digital Object Identifier) (if available/known) Collection(s) in Northumbria Research Link in which the output should be included

3. Attach an electronic copy of the article, if available, or the final peer-reviewed version if not. Library and Learning Services will then check the copyright status of the work, identify any requirements for open access deposit made by the publisher/copyright owner. An email will be sent to you confirming acceptance of the submitted „eprint‟ and details of the permanent URL. Where the Library is unable to establish the copyright status of your material, it will not submit it to Northumbria Research Link. However it will act on your behalf to obtain permission from the publisher/copyright owner.


40

Output Guardians Each School has designated a Guardian (or Guardians) of Outputs. The Guardians represent the link between the School and the Repository administration. Guardians as at 1st November 2010 are as follows: Arts and Social Sciences

Cheryl Buckley, Andrew Poole, Scott Burdon

Built and Natural Environment

Julie Blakey

CEIS

Rob Miles, Sarah Howells

Design

Erik Bohemia, Lorraine Davison

HCES

Julie Blackwell

Law

Rhona Smith

Life Sciences

Maya Duncanson Linda Barlow

NBS

Michelle McMath, Kristy Wonders


41

APPENDICES Appendix 1:

Checklist prior to writing a research application

Appendix 2:

Checklist for making a research application

Appendix 3:

Research, Business and Innovation: Final Check on Research Council Proposals

Appendix 4:

Useful Contacts


42

Appendix 1: Checklist prior to writing a research application 1. Why are you considering making an application? Will this give something new? Will it provide useful results? Will it add staff and/or students to your research group? 2. Discuss your idea with friends, colleagues, mentors. 3. Check the list of successful proposals at http://northumbria.ac.uk/researchandconsultancy/sa/devprop/tips/ to see if there are any to the same funder in a field and ask the PIs if you may borrow a copy of their application. 4. Look through previously successful applications and identify their strengths and weaknesses in order to inform your application. 5. Investigate potential funders – read their strategic plans, and contact the programme manager or equivalent to match your proposal idea with their priorities and answer your other questions. 6. Obtain forms from the funders you are interested in to check the regulations – are you eligible? What will they fund, what won‟t they fund? Your School Research Administrator may do this for you. 7. Consider why they should fund your research. How does it fit with the funder‟s priorities, or the call„s success criteria? Is it innovative, ambitious research? Who benefits? 8. Select your funder and discuss any implications with the Associate Dean for Research, or with the Dean – balancing the benefits of getting the research funded with the implications for the School. These may include, for example a fellowship application with a permanent post tie in, increased staffing levels, a prestigious funder but a low return on funding, or funding with onerous reporting requirements. 9. Put the deadline on your fridge door and block out your research time for at least one month. 10. If it is a large strategic programme the funder may run a workshop – this is a great opportunity to meet the programme managers, compare ideas with other academic staff, network and identify potential influential collaborators. Make sure you attend. Ask your School for time off and for funding to support your travel. You can also apply to Research, Business and Innovation (RBI) for funding but you will need to be certain it leads to a real application. (Checklist developed by kind permission. Original design © John Wakeford, 2006)


43

Appendix 2: Checklist for making a research application 1. Recheck potential funder and your eligibility. 2. Investigate the funder‟s current priorities; try to understand their current objectives and ensure that your application is broadly in line with their focus area. Try to get copies of the forms the funding body send to proposal referees. Some funders publish referee forms and guidelines on the web. 3. Check all elements of the proposal: do you need to register with electronic systems? Whose signature(s) will you need? Where? Does it need paper copies? Page length, structure of case for support etc. 4. Bring in collaborators with a worthy track record, even if their contribution is nominal. 5. Identify the lead person/principal investigator. 6. Contact the Research Support Office, or your School Research Administrator for support on costs and enter, in advance, the approval form with estimated costs and draft outline. 7. Work out precise deadlines to get through University internal approval and reach funder. 8. Check agreements with your collaborators: Agree deadlines IPR – who will own findings? Responsibilities especially finance Rights to publish and first author Will external ethical approval be required? 9. Do a risk assessment and build in allowances for contingencies (costs and time). 10. Try out your draft on family, friends, and colleagues and remember if they don‟t understand it, rewrite it. You will be judged by lay people and non-specialists. 11. When you have finished, write an abstract or summary as that will affect the way reviewers judge the rest of your proposal. Don't fill the first page up with “techno babble”, but present your whole case clearly and convincingly: what you want to do; why it's important; why you will succeed, and so on. 12. Check the list of Academic Mentors at http://northumbria.ac.uk/researchandconsultancy/sa/devprop/tips/ and ask one who has applied to the same funder in the past to read your application. Then contact any referees you may have nominated and ask them to read your application and provide feedback. Many proposals fail due to criticism from referees nominated by the applicant. (Checklist developed with permission. Original design © John Wakeford, 2006)


44

Appendix 3: Research, Business and Innovation: Final Check on Research Council Proposals Before submitting a research council bid, RBI staff will check that: the project‟s abstract/summary shows whether lab/office based etc costs on the Je-S form match those on the Costing Tool the total cost is appropriate to the funding programme – could it go to small grants? salary grades and increment points are in line with the start date estates costs are appropriately spilt between office and lab rates the overhead rate does not include any pooled staff effort FTE (e.g. technicians or administrators) staff are in appropriate Directly Incurred/Directly Allocated category band on the Je-S/ Justification of Resources form no international staff are included in staff costs – move them to consultancy day rates under „Other Directly Incurred‟ the Co-Investigator‟s normal duties are commensurate with being a named CoInvestigator if external, the Co-Investigator‟s institution‟s salary band, overheads, etc have been applied costs are categorised under the correct headings on the Justification of Resources form – remove any mention of indirect or estates costs the Justification of Resources form is no more than two sides of A4 and in correct font and font size the Principal Investigator, Co-Investigator and other staff roles have been justified in terms of grade, experience, and time – i.e. the reasons their time/experience is essential, rather than just how their time is spent on the project travel and subsistence items are specified in the Justification of Resources against staff – e.g. attendees and the conferences named where possible costs on the Justification of Resources form match the costs in the Je-S form attachments, font, font-size, margin-width and number of pages are in line with funder guidelines there is an appropriate balance of staff time and seniority in the proposal


45

Appendix 4: Useful Contacts

Academic Schools Arts and Social Sciences Built and Natural Environment Computing, Engineering and Information Sciences Design Health, Community, and Education Studies Law Life Sciences Newcastle Business School

Andrew Poole Andrew Pearce Fiona Ward

Mark Grant Rebecca Groves

David Fox Maya Duncanson Kristy Wonders

4852 7165 4589

7536 6673

7212 7028 3922

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Service Departments Finance (pre-award costs)

Ian Lowdon

4387

[email protected]

Finance (post award)

Wendy Anderson

3360

[email protected]

Framework Programme and other EU Funding

Val Hunter

4108

[email protected]

Framework Programme and other EU Funding

Teresa Kirby

4114

[email protected]

Research Support (TRACS, JeS, bid support) Research Support (research ethics, bid support)

Elizabeth Jones Stephanie Bales

4671 4908

[email protected] [email protected]


46