AIS shopCareers

Grant selection process

Grant selection process

The AIS adopts the ARC’s Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE) Statement, supporting equitable access to research funding. The AIS is seeking to increase equity in grant programs through improved advertising mechanisms and changes to the application and selection processes.

The AIS will appoint a Selection Committee to:

  • Assess and shortlist EOI applications; and
  • Assess full applications (interview process); and
  • Make a recommendation related to the successful applicants.

The Selection Committee comprises of:

  • AIS Chief Science Officer
  • A member of the AIS Intensive Rehabilitation Program
  • An expert in research design, epidemiology and/or statistics
  • A current or former elite athlete
  • A representative of the AIS National Network Leads
  • An independent representative from the Australian Sport Sector

During the assessment, the AIS may request additional information, which does not change the nature of the application. Applications will undergo a preliminary review by AIS R&D Administration to determine eligibility, prior to being scored and ranked by the Selection Committee.

After shortlisting, the AIS will interview shortlisted applicants to clarify details of the proposed R&D application. Final determination of grant allocation will be decided by the Grant Approver.

In agreement with the Australian Research Council’s suggestion, the AIS recommends all assessors undergo a process to identify and raise awareness of personal biases, question the basis for thoughts and feelings, build skills in cultural diversity and reflect on the strength of a culture that embraces differences.

Assessment Considerations

All applications will be considered through a competitive process, based on how well they meet the assessment considerations and how they are ranked against each other.

Below is a list of considerations that will guide decision-making by the Selection Committee.

Criterion 1 – Investigators – 60%

Assessment against the ‘investigators’ criterion should include consideration of the opportunities the applicants have had to build their profiles.*

  • Demonstrable expertise and capability to address the ‘return to play / athlete rehabilitation’ priority, including assessment of publications and/or R&D impact.
  • Access to resources needed to complete the project (including but not limited to, for example: labs, equipment, peers support, statistician, etc)

Criterion 2 – Project – 40%

* For example, researchers who are early in their research career or have had an interrupted research career, including employment outside academia, unemployment, child birth, carers’ responsibilities and other personal circumstances, will have this taken into account. This provides assessors with information to determine whether a Principal Investigator (PI) has had extensive opportunity for research compared to a PI who may have had more limited time for research. In this way, the quality and benefit of achievements are given more weight than the quantity or rate of particular achievements enabling excellent researchers to be competitive regardless of their career path. (from: https://www.arc.gov.au/funding-research/peer-review/assessment-process), opens in a new tab

# For example, assessment of the publications track record will not include a list of all publications, and will instead focus on up to 10 of the Research Group’s nominated best publications from the past 10 years (taking into consideration career disruptions). This will help to ensure that assessment of publication track record focuses on the quality and contribution to science rather than the quantity of publications. (adapted from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/peer-review-system/publication-assessment-track-record, opens in a new tab)

Back to top