close print

 Je-S Help (12 December  2004)

Contents

General Information

Using the Je-S System

Status Reporting

Guidance on Completing a Standard Grant Proposal

Guidance on Completing an Outline Proposal (EPSRC and NERC)

Guidance on Completing a Fellowship Proposal

Guidance on completing Expenditure Statements

Guidance on Completing a Final Report (EPSRC)

Guidance on Completing a Final Report Assessor Form (EPSRC only)

Guidance on Completing a Referees' Form (EPSRC only)  

General Information

Guidance on Completing Researcher/Student Details

 

General Information

About Je-S

Je-S is used by BBSRC, EPSRC, NERC and PPARC to provide their communities with electronic research grant services. It is designed to comply with the Je-S Framework.

Je-S is a development of EPSRC’s eForms system. At present it provides both cross-Council and EPSRC-specific functionality. As the Je-S  Framework expands the Councils expect to:

You need not be concerned about the distinction between cross-Council and EPSRC-specific aspects. If you have had dealings with EPSRC, you may have access to EPSRC-specific areas. If you have only dealt with NERC, for example, you will not have access to EPSRC-specific areas.

for more information on Je-S visit here

Cross-Council Functionality

Using Je-S, researchers and administrators can prepare electronic research grant proposals for BBSRC, EPSRC, NERC or PPARC.  These can then be submitted electronically to the Councils by organisational representatives.

One system and one process may be used to submit to any of the four Councils. Proposals can be prepared entirely on-line and then submitted. Alternatively, proposals may be:

  1. Created on-line.
  2. Downloaded for off-line working (appropriate tools required).
  3. Uploaded for approval and submission

EPSRC-Specific Functionality

All the functionality previously provided through eForms is now available through Je-S, although the look and feel of some of the screens may have changed.

Je-S Helpdesk

If you experience difficulties using Je-S or have questions regarding its use, please contact the helpdesk.

When reporting problems by e-mail or telephone, please supply the following information:

Je-S Access

You need a userid and password to access Je-S.  In many cases, these credentials will be issued as part of the process of registering research organisations to use Je-S for research grant proposals.  Otherwise, you may create an account by selecting Create Account from the Je-S login screen.

User accounts created using Create Account will be unregistered accounts initially.   An unregistered account enables a user to create grant proposals and to be available in the searchable database, see table below for full details.  An unregistered user may not, however, be named as an applicant when a grant proposal is forwarded for approval or submission. 

As part of the Create Account process, you may request for the account to be to be registered.  Only users with registered accounts may be included as applicants on grant proposals when they are forwarded for approval or submission.  An unregistered user may also request to be registered at any time.  

Upon receipt of a request for a registered account, the Je-S Helpdesk will forward the request to the nominated organisation’s central administration seeking confirmation that:

Registered Users

Unregistered users

Will appear in all searchable lists

Will appear in some searchable lists

Can be selected as

PIs

·Co-Is

Recognised researchers

Staff

Project partners

Referees

Can be selected as

·Staff

Project partners

Referees

Can prepare proposals

Can prepare proposals

Can forward documents for approval (if the organisation where the grant will be held is also registered)

Can forward a fellowship application for approval (if the organisation where it is to be  held is also registered)

Can perform approver /submitter functions (if their organisation is also registered)

Can perform approver /submitter functions (if their organisation is also registered)

Can be granted access to status reporting (if their organisation is also registered)

  

Can receive/submit peer review request to EPSRC

Can receive/submit peer review request to EPSRC
NOTES:    The details of users who have just created an account will not be available in the searchable database immediately.  The Je-S Helpdesk must first check that none of the account's details are offensive.  There will, therefore, be a delay between creating the account and the user's details being available in searches.  The length of this delay will depend on the time of account creation: as a guide, accounts should be checked within 0.5 working days.

Grant proposals must be submitted through an organisation.  Only organisations specifically registered for grant proposals will be able to submit proposals to the Councils.  See here for the current status of organisations' registrations.

A registered user must only have one user account.  Approvers and Submitters need not have registered accounts.

Possession of a registered account does not equate to being able to submit proposals.  A user may hold a registered account at an organisation that is not registered to submit grant proposals through Je-S.  This is to allow collaborations between researchers at different organisations. 

Types of Je-S User

RO (Research Organisation) Master ID

Every organisation using Je-S will be given a single master account, known as the RO Master ID.  This account will allow the organisation to set up a one-stage approval mechanism (ie. Submitter Pool only) or a two-stage approval mechanism (Approver and Submitter Pools).  The Pools are relevant to document types submitted on behalf of the organisation (eg. research proposals, IGRs) rather than an individual (eg. referee reports).

The RO Master ID is used to assign user accounts to be Approvers or Submitters (see Individual Users).

Individual Users

Owners

An Owner is a user who controls access by others to the document.  In some instances (eg. for research grant proposals) ownership may be transferred to another user.

Editors

An Owner may share documents with existing (registered and unregistered) users by granting them access as Editors.  If the required person is not an existing Je-S user and is not able to create their own account, the Owner can set up a temporary Editor account for them.

The possible levels of Editor access that can be granted are:

View Only Users can view the document.
View and Edit Users can view the document and make changes on behalf of the Owner/Approver/Submitter.
View, Edit and Submit Users can view the document and make changes on behalf of the Owner/Approver and then forward it to a next stage in the approval process.

The allowable levels vary depending on the document types.  For research grant proposals, all three levels are available.

Approvers (Research Proposals and IGRs)

If Approvers Pools have been set up and are switched on, documents must pass through the Approval step.  Typically, the Approver is a Head of Department or Faculty (whilst the Submitter is a function within the RO's administration authority).

Approvers are allocated to one or more Approver Pools (which would typically be a collection of Departments within a RO).  The appropriate pool for a document is determined by the department to which the document is assigned.

Approvers "check-out" a document for processing from the unassigned documents list.  They can share documents with Editors but only whilst the document is in their processing area.

An Approver is required to:

or

Submitters (Research Proposals and IGRs)

A document  may be sent to the appropriate Submitter Pool by the Approver (two-stage approval) or the Owner / Editor (one-stage approval).

A Submitter is required to:

Submitters are allocated to one or more Submitter Pools (which would typically be a collection of Departments within a RO).  The appropriate pool for a document is determined by the department to which the document is assigned.

Submitters can share documents with Editors but only whilst the document is in their processing area.

 

System Requirements

Operating Systems and Browsers

In line with the Je-S Framework, the research proposals area of Je-S has been tested on the following operating system/ browser combinations:

 

IE 5.x

IE 6.x

Netscape
6.x

Netscape
7.x

Mozilla

Windows ’98

Windows NT4

Windows 2000

Windows XP

Apple Mac OS

Unix/Linux

There are known problems with some of these combinations. Any new problems reported to the Helpdesk will be investigated and resolved if at all possible.

WARNING:    Although you should be able to use Je-S on an operating system and/or browser that is not listed, the Councils cannot devote resources to resolving any reported problems for such browsers.

Screen Resolution

The system has been designed for 800 x 600.

Encryption

Browsers must support 128-bit encryption.

Uploading Attachments

Documents in PDF (4.0 and above), PostScript (Level 2) and Microsoft Word formats may be uploaded as attachments.  All attachments will be stored in Je-S as PDF.

Known Problems

All platforms:

After browsing to a location to select an attachment to upload, the file location will be lost if you fail to add mandatory information such as the file type.  The browse option will then have to be re-used.

There may be differences in the display of text (eg. line spacing) on screen compared to the hard copy print-outs.  Users are advised to check that text is displayed correctly in the print-out before forwarding for approval or submission.

Adobe 6.0 has a known problem which can sometimes produce a blank printed document version. However, the document does create successfully and can be viewed using the last printed version option.

Netscape 4.7x:

This is not a supported browser.  Users are recommended to upgrade to a later version of Netscape (available free of charge).  If Netscape 4.7x is used, the following problems (and possibly others) may be encountered:

IE5.n on Mac

The following issues exist:

Timeout

For security reasons your session will be timed out if no activity is detected during a defined period. You will then have to log in again to continue.

 

Locked Sessions

To help avoid unwanted locking of documents, please ensure that, if possible, you log out from Je-S before closing the browser.

 

Accessibility: Using the system with the keyboard

Depending on your browser/operating system combination, it may be possible to use the Je-S system without the mouse. Try using the Tab key to select buttons or boxes on the screen and then pressing the Enter to action them. To navigate inside lists etc, try using the up and down arrow keys.

What’s New

7 December 2004 (Release 10): BBSRC, NERC and PPARC expenditure statements, attachment types, EPSRC DTA capture tool, reworking of EPSRC  final reports

26 October 2004 (Release 9): interim changes to proposals for full economic costing.

31 August 2004 (Release 8): EPSRC expenditure statements. EPSRC Research chair fellowship forms. Changes to create account screen.

3 August 2004 (Release 7): EPSRC (Senior, Advanced, Senior Media), NERC (Advanced Senior, Post Doctoral) and PPARC  (Advanced Senior, Post Doctoral) fellowship proposal forms available.

9 July 2004 (Release 6.2): new print queuing options and performance enhancements, minor changes to proposal forms including changes to other support section, updates to helptext to reflect recent changes in Council's guidance.

22nd June 2004 (release 6.1): staff post calculator updated to JNCHES August 04 scales, updated EPSRC studentship fees and stipends

24 April 2004 (Release 5):  Status reporting, user preferences, discussion forum, restyled EPSRC referees forms.

18 November 2003 (Release 4): creation of unregistered user accounts, introduction of PIDs, the generation of the Research Council grant reference number on submission, revised security procedures, acceptance of Microsoft Word attachments.

30 September 2003 (Release 3): BBSRC proposal form, NERC and EPSRC outline forms and EPSRC IGR Assessor forms now available.

1 July 2003 (Release 2):  PPARC proposal form available.

12 May 2003 (Release 1): The initial release of the upgrade of eForms to the multi-Council Je-S.  Changes to login procedures, personal data maintenance (My Details), password maintenance (Login Details) and the Assigned Documents Summary screen.  Access to the new Grant Proposals area for users whose organisation has registered to use this service.  The system help text expanded to cover the new functionality.

Future Releases

Release 11 (15th February) Reconciliation statements, EPSRC college nomination tool

About the Je-S Framework

The Je-S (Joint e-Submission) Framework is the vehicle through which the UK Research Councils and the AHRB (Art and Humanities Research Board) intend jointly to increase electronic handling of research grants, fellowships and studentships.

The aims are to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of systems and to assist applicants, award holders and institutions.

The Councils are committed to meeting the Government's targets for the provision of on-line services by 2005. The Je-S  Framework specifies a set of requirements and standards to enable a common "look and feel" to external users, whilst maintaining flexibility to handle Councils' different business needs.

Je-S is the system implementation of the Je-S Framework.  Currently, the Framework covers the completion and submission of outline and full research grant proposals.

Further information on the Je-S Framework.

Process Diagram

Accessing Je-S

Every Je-S user must be authenticated by the system before they can use it. For the time being, this will be achieved via the entry of a username and password. This login process will provide:

Creating a Document

The Owner starts the Je-S document and it may then be completed by one or more Editors on their behalf.

For example:

The Case for Support and other supporting documents (for research proposals) will be completed in other office applications and then converted into a standard cross-platform document format before or on submission.

Allocating Editor Access

Owners can share documents by granting Editor Access to existing account holders at any stage prior to submission.  Approvers and Submitters can share documents in the same way but only whilst the document is in their processing area.

Transferring Ownership

The Owner may transfer Owner status to another user at any time before submission.

NOTE:    The Owner must be either the Principal Applicant or a Co-Applicant before the document enters the approval process and the Owner must remain such a user thereafter.

Deleting and Hiding Documents

If a decision is made not to proceed with the application, the Owner can delete the document before submission.

If an application is postponed, or the Owner is uncertain whether it will proceed in the future, a safer option may be to hide the document. A hidden document is only visible to the Owner and may be restored to full status within a given period of time.

An Owner can create a document, then hide it to use as a template on which to base new applications.

Approving and Submitting Documents

A proposal may be sent to the Approver Pool (two-stage approval) or Submitter Pool (single-stage) by the Owner or an Editor.

An Approver or Submitter is required to:

Amendments may also be made by the Approver or Submitter in which case the system will require the document to be revalidated before final submission.

The system generates the Research Council's reference number for the document on successful submission.

E-mail Notifications

 

E-mails are sent to interested parties at various points in the completion of a proposal.  The various e-mail notifications and recipients are summarised in the following tables for standard and outline proposals:

 Standard Proposals

User / Contact Recipient of status change e-mail

 

 

 

Action

Owner

Editors

Principal Applicant

Co-Applic-ants

Approver

(actual Approver identity)

Submitter

(actual Submitter identity)

RO Master ID

Edit Document (optional e-mail)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Promote Document to Approver

Y

Y

Y

Demote Document to Owner

Y

Y

Approve Document

Y

Y

Y

Promote Document to Submitter

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Demote Document to Approver

Y

Y

Y

Submit Document

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

 Outline Proposals

User / Contact Recipient of status change e-mail

 

 

 

Action

Owner

Editors

Principal Applicant

Co-Applic-ants

Approver

(actual Approver identity)

Submitter

(actual Submitter identity)

RO Master ID

Edit Document (optional e-mail)

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

N/A

Promote Document to Approver

 

 

N/A

Demote Document to Owner

Approve Document

Demote Document to Approver

Submit Document

Y

Y

 

Using the Je-S System

Entering and Navigating through the System

Welcome (Log in) Screen

To enter Je-S:
  1. Enter your user id and password.
  2. Click onto proceed to the Assigned Document Summary screen.
Je-S Terms and Conditions of Use

On your first log in, you will be prompted to read and accept the terms and conditions. Accept the terms and conditions to enter the system.  In future, you will be prompted again to read and accept the terms and conditions if they have changed significantly since your last log in.

Upon acceptance of the terms and conditions, you will be asked to provide three Challenge Responses and a password hint if one does not already exist. 

WARNING:   The Password Hint must not contain more than a 5 character extract from your Password

The Challenge Responses are part of a security measure to help ensure that only you may gain access to your account.  If, in future, you fail to login successfully after four attempts, the system will lock you out.  You will consequently receive an e-mail containing a URL.  Visit this URL to activate the re-authentication process.  The system will select two of the prompts you provided.  If you answer with the correct responses, the system will allow you to reset your password and password hint.

Assigned Document Summary

This screen summarises all the existing documents available to you. Details include:

To find an existing document:
  1. Click on the relevant Document Type.

You will be taken to the Current Documents screen.

To add a new document (grant proposals only):
  1. Click on .

You will be taken to the Add New Document screen.

Current Documents (Cross-Council Services)/Documents List (EPSRC-Specific)

The Current Documents screen lists all the documents (of the type you selected in the document summary screen) you have access to.  Click a column heading to sort the list by that heading.

You can Sort using the column filters.  Click on the tick.

Click on the PI, Title or Reference to proceed to the Document Menu screen. 

To view the name of the Owner (ie. the person able to manage access to the document) click on Status.   A window will open giving the current Owner and the status of the document.

The equivalent screen in other (EPSRC-specific) parts of the system is Document List .

If you are an approver/submitter and un-allocated documents exist in your pool, the Unallocated Documents link at the top of the left of the screen will indicate the number.  Click on this link, tick the relevant check-boxes and press Assign.

User Preferences

Selecting  from the current documents screen allows you to select the column headings to be viewed.

Email confirmation allows you to select the option to send an email notification to others after editing a document.

When selected, returning to the document summary screen after making changes to a document will ask you if you want to send an email as shown below:

De-selecting turns this functionality off

The Document List Columns are available to be selected or de-selected by using the tick boxes.  Once you have selected the headings click.  Clicking  displays all the available headings.

Your current documents are then displayed according to the headings you have selected.

Add New Document ( Proposals only)

To create a new document:
  1. Click on the Council drop-down menu and select the Council to which the proposal is to be submitted.

  2. Click on the Document Type drop-down menu and select the type of document to be submitted.

  3. Click on to proceed to the Add New Proposal screen.

General System Features

Button Action
Send a query to the Je-S Helpdesk.
View and amend your personal details held by Je-S
Change your userid, password, password hint and Challenge Responses
View the recently released developments to the system
View help text for this screen
For organising department groups (RO Master ID only)
Exit Je-S
To post your views on Je-S


My Details

NOTE:    Please make every effort to keep your details up-to-date. Otherwise, important correspondence might not reach you in good time. 

The system will prompt you to check your details if they have not been confirmed for over a year. 

A user's details must be confirmed within the past year if the user is to be included as an investigator or recognised researcher on a research grant proposal.
To change and confirm your personal details:

Personal details have to be confirmed within the last 12 months for a person to be selected as a:

  1. Click on .

  2. Make changes as necessary, then click to insert a tick in the check-box to confirm your details are correct and then click on .

    The system confirms the changes:

  3. Click on to return to the Assigned Document Summary screen.
Personal Details

The Councils would appreciate comprehensive information being provided in order to check that their policies and mechanisms do not discriminate against investigators on the various grounds listed. The information is also useful for analysis of the structure of the research population.

Entries must be made (in some cases, Not Disclosed is a valid entry) for all fields except:

PID (personal identifier): a unique (system generated) identifier for user accounts.  It is used by the Councils to help ensure that individuals are identified correctly on the system.

Honours: enter any honours eg. FRS, FRSE

Preferred Form of Name: use this if you wish a particular form of address to be used or if your name is longer than allowed for and the appropriate abbreviation is not that which would occur by default

Telephone: your preferred telephone number (including any extension number)

Fax: your preferred fax number

E-mail: the individual’s preferred e-mail address

Gender: a selection from the pre-defined list must be made

Ethnic Origin: a selection from the pre-defined list must be made

Disability: optionally you may indicate your disability status.  If checkbox is ticked, details of the disability may be entered

Current Post: the title of your current job must be entered

Current Post Start Date: the date on which you started your current post must be entered

Sector: the sector in which you work. A selection from the pre-defined list must be made

Function: the primary function of your job. A selection from the pre-defined list must be made

Expertise: a free text description of your areas of expertise. This information may be used to help identify expertise in a given area and to select potential referees

Address Details

The screen displays the contact details held for you by the Councils.  Make changes as necessary, click to insert a tick in the check-box to confirm your details are correct and then click on .

The current and past mail addresses held for you are listed.  To change your contact mail address you may either:

or

Registered Details

The screen displays details that cannot be changed immediately.

To notify the Councils of necessary changes, enter the amendments, tick the check-box to confirm the details and press

Login Details

Password constraints
  1. Your password must be at least 6 characters in length.
  2. You cannot re-use a password within 1 year.
Preferred User Name

This field allows you to enter the User Id of your choice. When you submit your details the system will check your entry against existing User Ids. If your chosen User Id is already being used, a message will be displayed to inform you. Click on OK to return to the form, and enter a different User Id.

Password Hint

In the Password Hint box, enter a word or phrase that will prompt you to remember the password. If you forget your password, enter your User Id at the Je-S Log in screen and click on the CLICK HERE link below the Password box.  You will then receive an e-mail with your password hint.

WARNING:    The Password Hint must not contain more than a 5 character extract from your Password.
To change your login details:
  1. Click on .

    The Change Password screen will appear.

  2. Change the details as required, then click on Update.

Pool Admin

NOTE:    You will only see the button if you are able to access Je-S  using the RO Master ID.

The RO Master ID can perform Pool Administration tasks to control the approval and submission of documents. It can:

Default pools are provided on the Je-S system:

 The RO Master ID can use these default pools and/or create and administer new pools.

The steps involved in organising Approver and Submitter Pools are as follows:

To add a new pool:
  1. Click on

    The Pool Admin screen will be displayed:

     

  2. Click on the Department Grouping link.

    The Pool Admin - Department Grouping screen will be displayed:

     

  3. Click on

    The Pool Admin - Add New Group screen will be displayed:

     

  4. Enter a name for the new Pool.

  5. Select the type of pool you want to create, i.e. Approver or Submitter.

  6. Click on

    A list of pools will appear. This should include the pool you have just created:

To add a department to the new pool:
  1. From the Pool Admin - Department Grouping screen, click on the edit link to the left of the relevant Pool name.

  2. Click on

    The Pool Admin - Edit Group - Add Department(s) screen will be displayed:

     

  3. Click to insert a tick in the check-box to the right of the relevant department(s), then click on

    A list of all departments in the Pool, if any, is displayed on the Pool Admin - Edit Group screen. Each department you subsequently add will appear in this list.  These departments will be removed from the corresponding default Pool.

To add a person to the new pool:
  1. From the Pool Admin - Department Grouping screen, click on the edit link to the left of the relevant group name.

  2. Click on

    The Pool Admin - Edit Group - Add Person(s) screen will be displayed:

     

  3. Click to insert a tick in the checkbox to the right of the relevant person, then click on

    A list of all persons in the group, if any, is displayed on the Pool Admin - Edit Group screen. Each person you subsequently add will appear in this list.

To stop using an existing Pool:

Click on the edit link to the left of the relevant group name, then click on Change group name and usage, untick the Use this pool? check-box and press (Approver Pools only)

or

Click on the delete link to the right of the relevant group (Approver and Submitter Pools).

User Maintenance

Use this to view and change:

To view/change the Pools assigned:

1.  Select a user from the list by clicking the radio button beside their name and details

2.  Click at the bottom of the page

3.  Click the appropriate button to: Add to a Pool or Remove from a Pool

4.  Select the Pool(s) to which you wish to assign the user by ticking the appropriate check-box

5.  Press

To view/change the documents currently assigned

1.  Repeat steps (1) and (2) above

2.  Select the View all documents allocated to ..... button

3.  Select any document you wish to unallocate by ticking the check-box and press

Document Maintenance

Use this to view the current status of documents and un-allocate them if necessary

To view the list of documents for your organisation

1.  Click on the View link beside the relevant document type in the Pool Admin - Document Maintenance Screen

2.  Select any documents you wish to unallocate by ticking the check-box and press

Approvers and Submitters:  Assigning Documents

If un-allocated documents exist, the Unallocated Documents link at the top of the left of the Current Documents screen will indicate the number.  Click on this link, tick the relevant check-boxes and press Assign.

Approvers and Submitters:  Historical Documents

Text to be added.

Sharing Documents (Cross-Council Services)

It is possible to:

To share a document with a Je-S user:
  1. In the Current Documents screen, click on the relevant Document Title to proceed to the Document Menu screen.  Select User Access Privileges

  2. In the Document editors and Access Privileges screen, click on .

  3. Click on to the right of the Name box.

  4. Use the Search facility to find and select the relevant registered user (see Searching for Data).

  5. Select the appropriate access level from the Privileges list.

     

  6. Click on

To set up a temporary user account:
  1. Repeat Step 1 above.

  2. In the Document Editors and Access Privileges screen, click on

     

  3. Click in the Enter email address box and type the e-mail address of the temporary user

  4. Select the appropriate access level from the Privileges list

  5. Click on

    A list of temporary users will be displayed:

    Click on the edit link to the left of a user's name to edit his/her details

    Click on to return to the Document Menu screen

NOTE:    An e-mail message will automatically be sent to the temporary user disclosing their Je-S password. The temporary user can then gain access to the Je-S system by using this password together with their e-mail address as the User Id.  The temporary account will be valid for one month.

Sharing Documents (EPSRC-Specific Areas)

It is possible to:

To set up a temporary user account:
  1. In the Document List screen, click on the icon beside the relevant document.

  2. Enter the name and e-mail address of the individual and press .  The user will appear in the list of Current Users.

  3. If you wish to give the user view and edit access, check the Update check-box beside their entry in the Current Users list.  For view only access, leave this check-box blank.  Press .  The user will be added to the list of current Editors

To share a document with a Je-S user:

  1. Repeat Step 1 above

  2. Enter the user's user id in the Current Users list.

  3. Repeat Step 3 above.

Searching for data

If a text box is shaded, you must search and select data from a pre-defined list.  Searching may return entries for single or multiple fields.

NOTE:    To ensure compliance with Data Protection Legislation, all Person Searches are restricted to individuals who have consented to their details being made available in searches.  This includes all Je-S users - the consent having been given when accepting the Je-S terms and conditions of use.

Further, in some cases the search is limited to the selected Organisation.  If you want to search for all registered users, click on the here in the "Click here to view all" link below the Search facility.

If you need to include someone as an investigator or Recognised Researcher who is not available in the searchable list, you should ask them to create an account and request it to be registered.  Their details will become available once the Je-S Helpdesk has checked the details (to guard against spoof, offensive account details) - this should take no more than 0.5 working days.  The account will be registered once the relevant research organisation has confirmed the account details - this may take two or more working days.

EXAMPLES:

To enter the name of the submitting organisation:
  1. Click on.

    The Submitting Organisation window will be displayed:

 

  1. Type a text string from the name of the organisation you require and click on Search.  The system will return entries that match the text string.
     
  2. Click on the relevant organisation.  The pop-up window will automatically close and the name of the organisation will be entered into the text box.
To enter the Name, Organisation and Department of the Principal Investigator (PI):
  1. Ensure that you have completed the Organisation and Department fields.

  2. Click on .

    The Person Search window will be displayed.

     
  3. Type the beginning of the person's surname and/or initials into the search boxes and click on Search.  A list of Je-S users whose details match the text string you entered will appear in the window.

  4. Click on the relevant name.  The pop-up window will automatically close and the data entered into the relevant text boxes.

Entering Other Contacts (eg. project partner contacts, visiting researchers):

  1. Follow the same steps as above.  In these cases, however, if the required contact is not returned, the system offers the option to add a new contact's details ("Add New Contact" button).  The contact is not added to the searchable database, so their details would have to be added each time they are required.

Show Document History

The Document History displays previous statuses of the document throughout the stages of the process.

Access the document history from Document Menu/Show Document History (Grant Proposals) or Document List icon (EPSRC-specific areas).

Hide Documents

The Owner may hide the document.  A hidden document is only visible to the Owner and may be restored to full status at any time.  An Owner can create a document, then hide it to use as a template on which to base new applications.

Hide a document using Document Menu, Hide Document (Grant Proposals) or Document List icon (EPSRC-specific areas)

Repeat the steps to Un-hide a document

Delete Documents

If a decision is made not to proceed with the application, the Owner can in certain circumstances delete the document.

Delete a document using Document Menu, Delete Document (for Grant Proposals) or Document List icon (for EPSRC-specific areas)

Transfer Document Ownership

An Owner may transfer Ownership to another user.

Transfer ownership using Document Menu, Transfer Ownership (Grant Proposals) or Document List icon (EPSRC-Specific areas).

  1. Click on to open the Person Search window (see Searching for Data).

  2. Click on .

Grant Proposals

Add New Proposal

After clicking on Create Document button on the Add New Document screen, the Add New Proposal screen will open.

You may either:

        or

Entering the data requested

1.  You must enter data in each of the fields on the Add New Proposal screen before a new proposal can be created

2.  See Searching for Data for guidance on how to complete shaded text boxes

3.  See Project Details and Investigators for guidance on the requirements for each field

 
Copying data from an existing proposal
To copy data from an existing proposal:
  1. Click on  .

    A list of proposals will appear.

  2. Click on the PI, Reference, Title or Organisation of the relevant document.

    The data is imported into the proposal and the Document Menu screen is displayed.

  3. You may now amend the data as necessary.  The new proposal will be displayed in the Current Documents Screen.

 

Document Menu

The Document Menu screen is the main screen for editing a research proposal document. All actions on the proposal can be accessed from this page.

Attachments

You can upload attachments files that are related to a document, such as the Case for Support or cover letter, in the following formats:

You should prepare attachments off-line with the appropriate application(s) and then use Je-S to attach them to a document.  All attachments will be stored in Je-S as .pdf files.  For grant proposals, once the proposal has been submitted to the Council, the Council's reference number will be included in the pdf version (to help prevent pages being lost in subsequent processing).

Resource Summary [draft]

This section is populated automatically, based on data input under one or more of the fund headings. The total should be the amount being requested from the Council, net of contributions from any project partners. Costs will be rounded to the nearest pound and staff effort to the nearest quarter decimal (ie .00, .25, .50, .75).

Guidance on Completing Expenditure Statements

Expenditure statements are required to enable the Research Councils to meet their responsibilities in accounting for the use of public funds.  An Expenditure Statement is used to reconcile the actual expenditure with the payments made on a grant.

Approximately one month prior to the end date of the research grant, the Research Organisation will be automatically issued with a Final Expenditure Statement.  This will be placed in the Je-S Finance Submitter Pool (or the Finance Approver Pool if a two-stage submission process is used).  The Finance functional e-mail account will be notified that the statement has been issued and the Research Organisation must complete and return it within 3 months of the end date of the research grant.

The statement must provide details of how the funds awarded on the research grant have been spent and under which headings.

The statement must show actual costs incurred and the Research Organisation may increase the amounts within individual headings of expenditure by transfer from another heading, subject to the following restrictions:

Indirect costs cannot be transferred;*

Funds provided for Large Capital, or savings on the purchase of such items are not transferable without prior written approval.

Once an Expenditure Statement has been received and the expenditure incurred has been reconciled against payments made, it will be considered final.  Reconciliation statements will be delivered via the status reporting facility.

*With the exception of Tied Student Indirects for NERC.

Interim Expenditure Statements

For some grants, an Interim Expenditure Statement may also be required.  These are generated prior to the review date.

For EPSRC and PPARC:  All grants of more than 42 months duration will automatically have a review date, at which point payments will be suspended and the Research Organisation will be required to complete an Interim Expenditure Statement.

An Interim Expenditure Statement will also be generated if a grant is subject to an organisation transfer.

Failure to submit Expenditure Statements

Prior written permission must be obtained from the Research Council if a Research Organisation wishes to request an extension to the Expenditure Statement due date.  However, if this permission has not been granted and the Expenditure Statement is not received within the period allowed, the Research Council may recover 20% of expenditure incurred on the grant.  All payments may be recovered if the statement is not received within 6 months of the end of the grant.

Process for Completing an Expenditure Statement

Finance functional e-mail account is notified that Expenditure Statements have been issued.

Users in the Finance Submitter Pool (or Finance Approver Pool for two-stage submission) assign expenditure statements to themselves for completion.

Users complete each expenditure statement assigned to them through an interface similar to that for grant proposals (this includes ability to give access to other users and printing functionality).

Users submit each expenditure statement to the Council (via the Finance Submitter Pool for two-stage).

Councils reconcile expenditure (as now).

Document Menu

The document menu screen is the main screen for editing the expenditure statement. All actions on the expenditure statement can be accessed from this page. Data functions are listed on the left and document functions are listed on the right.

Clicking on the Expenditure Details Summary will show you the expenditure statement’s authorised, paid to date and expenditure values for the various fund headings.

The authorised and paid to date values are not editable as they are provided by the Research Council, but the expenditure details may be amended either by typing directly into the field where a single value is required (denoted by a white box) or by clicking the fund heading where a list of items is required (denoted by a greyed out box and a hyperlink on the fund heading). 

You may also access each fund heading by clicking directly on the links below the expenditure details summary on the document menu screen. The figure shown in brackets beside each heading shows the number items currently under the respective fund heading.

Once the data has been amended, click ‘calculate’ to refresh the sub-total, indirect and total values and click ‘save’ to save your changes.

Staff

You may add staff members to the expenditure statement by clicking ‘add new’.  

The name of the staff member can be typed directly into the ‘Name’ field, or you can click ‘Select’ which will allow you to search using the first few letters of a surname and/or initials.  

Click on the person you require from the returned list and then continue to complete as many of the data fields for that staff member as you can. Some fields may not be editable depending on which staff type you select.

For BBSRC: 

Casual staff details should be entered under exceptional items and such claims will not attract the indirect cost addition.

For PPARC:

Casual staff details should be entered under the consumables fund heading.

Exceptional items

You may add exceptional items to the expenditure statement by clicking on ‘Add New Exceptional Items’ and entering a brief description of item and its cost.

Travel & Subsistence (detail required for BBSRC only)

You may add travel and subsistence to the expenditure by clicking on 'Add New' and the selecting name of the staff member by typing directly into the 'Name' field, clicking 'Select' which will allow you to search using the first few letters of a surname and/or initials.  Click on the person you require from the returned list.  Enter a brief description of the item, along with the start and end dates and its cost.

Equipment and Large Capital Equipment

You may add Equipment and Large Capital Equipment items to the expenditure statement by clicking on ‘Add New…’  and entering a brief description of item, the dates ordered and purchased and the cost.

Absence

You may add absence (e.g. maternity, paternity, sick leave) items to the expenditure statement by clicking on 'Add New' and then selecting the name of the staff member by typing directly into the 'Name' field, clicking select which will allow you to search using the first few letters of a surname and/or initials.  Click on the person you require from the returned list.  Choose the type of absence from the drop down list, and enter the start and end dates of the absence period, along with the cost.

  EPSRC Final Report

Notes for Guidance on Completing a Final Report (standard, OTG )

Please read prior to completing the Final Report.

General

At the end of a research grant, there is a requirement for a report on the research undertaken and a statement of expenditure incurred to satisfy the EPSRC’s accountability requirements. This Final Report comprises:

Submission of the Final Report is required within 3 months of the end of the research grant (one month for Overseas Travel Grants). A financial penalty will be imposed on the organisation if the Final Report is received after the deadline for submission. In addition, no further research proposals by the Investigator will be considered where a report from a previous grant is outstanding or where a Final Report has been submitted but not accepted (e.g. the form is incomplete). It is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator and the organisation to ensure that the Final Report is received by the EPSRC within the period allowed. In some circumstances, the submission period may be extended, but any requests must be made in writing, and agreed by the EPSRC, before the original submission period expires.

Purpose of  a final Report

The purpose of the Final Report is to allow the EPSRC to make an assessment of the conduct of a research project, its success in meeting its agreed objectives, and to make a preliminary assessment of its quality and impact. The Final Report forms an integral part of EPSRC’s evaluation framework, contributing both to the assessment of individual projects and to the evaluation of the overall EPSRC research and training portfolio. In addition, Final Report data may be used more broadly in support of the public understanding of science and engineering.

Assessment Process

Assessment is undertaken by peer review.  A two stage assessment process is normally followed: a written review by a number of independent assessors, one of whom will have been a referee on the original research proposal, followed by consideration by a panel. In both cases, comments are sought on the achievements/advances arising from the research project and the quality and impact of the results.   Assessors and panel members will normally be drawn from the EPSRC College.

Assessors typically provide both a narrative assessment of the research undertaken and a rating against a number of evaluation criteria.  For standard research grants the criteria are:

i)

Research Quality;

ii)

Research Planning and Practice;

iii)

Potential Scientific Impact;

iv)

Quality of Training & Experience Provided;

v)

Communication of Research Outputs;

vi)

Potential Benefits to Society;

vii)

Cost-effectiveness.

Note that, for grants which predominantly provide funding for equipment, and for Network grants, specific guidance is included below.

The Principal Investigator will be provided with the assessors’ comments and given an opportunity to respond to any factual inaccuracies, prior to the Final Report being seen by the panel.

The panel will finalise the individual criteria grades and agree an overall grade that takes into account the relevance of the individual criteria to a particular research project and the degree of risk. The Final Report is the principal mechanism for researchers to report activities and achievements arising from an EPSRC research grant. Where, however, the research grant forms part of a larger strategic programme or initiative, additional assessment requirements may need to be met - such cases will have been stated as part of the Grant Offer letter. Feedback on the assessment, in the form of final gradings and assessors’ comments, will be provided to the Principal Investigator and will also be made available as an input to the appraisal of any future proposals submitted to EPSRC.

Final Reports for Projects comprising two or more grants

Where a research grant is part of a larger, combined project, each Principal Investigator is responsible for the submission of a completed Final Report form. However, only a single narrative report of six sides covering the whole of the project is required. The completed forms and single report will be assessed together by the same reviewers, and the project will be graded as a single whole. This mirrors the process for the research grant application stage, where projects comprising two or more parts are required to submit only a single combine case for support.

Equipment Grants

The EPSRC provides funds for major equipment purchases on standard grants. In cases such as these, the requirements for the Final Report do not entirely follow the procedures described above. Instead, a modified approach has been developed. You are asked to complete the Final Report form as far as you are able. It is recognised that the appropriate response in many cases will be “not applicable”. The narrative report should be completed but as for all other grants must not exceed six sides. The report should cover:

The Final Report will be sent to assessors as for all other grants, and will then be seen by a peer review panel. However, assessors and panels will be provided with guidance as to the particular nature of the grant.

Network Grants

The EPSRC provides funds for the setting up of research networks, and from 2002 all new Network applications should normally have as their key objective the formation of a new interdisciplinary research community and the identification of new interdisciplinary research topics. It is recognised that Networks which were submitted to EPSRC before 2002 may have different objectives and indeed EPSRC may occasionally issue calls for proposals for Networks in specific strategic areas with alternative objectives.

As Networks are different from typical EPSRC research grants, their assessment does not entirely follow the standard procedure. You are asked to complete the Final Report form as far as you are able. It is recognised that the appropriate response in many cases will be “not applicable”. The narrative report should be completed but as for all other grants should not exceed six sides. The report should certainly cover

The report should also indicate whether the Network will continue after this award, and if so how it will be funded, and any other outcomes which have resulted directly from the existence of the Network.

The Final Report will be sent to assessors as for all other grants, and will then be seen by a peer review panel. However, assessors and panels will be provided with guidance as to the particular nature of the grant.

How to Complete the Documentation

The Final Report must be completed by the Principal Investigator, with input from any co-investigators and collaborators as appropriate, and submitted to the EPSRC no later than 3 months from the completion of the grant (one month for Overseas Travel Grants).

The contents of the Final Report will be treated in confidence by the EPSRC and its assessors, although the project summary may be published on the EPSRC web site.

The Final Report comprises three parts:

and where relevant,

The report is an opportunity to describe the research project undertaken. The Principal Investigator may choose to use narrative text alone, or to include diagrams. Any material, whether text or diagrams, over and above six sides will not be accepted, except in cases where prior consent has been given. Please ensure, however, that any information which should be regarded as commercial-in-confidence is clearly marked as such and put in a separate, additional annex to the other documentation with an appropriate explanation. In the case of electronic submission (see below), confidential material can be sent as a separate PDF file clearly marked as such in the accompanying description.

Prescriptions regarding the length and content of the Final Report are aimed at ensuring equitable and transparent peer review processes. The fair assessment of Final Reports and consequent judgements about research outputs demand that the reports of all projects are treated in the same manner. It is the EPSRC’s intention that these prescriptions allow adequate reporting opportunity for investigators whilst at the same time allowing for clear, fair and timely assessment by reviewers.

Review report documentation should be completed in typescript (font size 10 is the minimum acceptable).

The Final Report form itself is intended to capture new information, which can be used as an input to evaluation, public awareness and other data based activities, as well as aiding assessment of the research project. Much of this will involve the grant holder in updating ‘potential’ or ‘expected’ data elicited at the research proposal stage. Wherever possible, sections of the form have been pre-filled, drawing on information from the proposal. Please make clear any amendments to the pre-filled sections as necessary.

Data Protection Act 1998

The information that you provide will be used in the processing of all aspects of the Final Report and could be made available to national/international assessors and EPSRC Peer Review Panels for that purpose.

In addition, the information may be used:

This information will remain stored for as long as the historical record is required.

If you have any queries regarding this statement please contact the EPSRC Data Protection Officer (Telephone +44 (0) 1793 444 100).

NOTES FOR GUIDANCE FOR COMPLETING A FINAL REPORT (PLATFORM GRANT)

Please read prior to completing the Platform Grant Final Report Form and detailed Report.

GENERAL

At the end of a Platform grant, there is a requirement for a report on the activities undertaken and a statement of expenditure incurred to satisfy the EPSRC’s accountability requirements. This Final Report comprises:

Submission of the Final Report is required within 3 months of the end of the Platform grant. A financial penalty will be imposed on the organisation if the Final Report is received after the deadline for submission. In addition, no further research proposals by the Investigator will be considered where a report from a previous grant is outstanding or where a Final Report has been submitted but not accepted (e.g. the form is incomplete). It is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator and the organisation to ensure that the Final Report is received by the EPSRC within the period allowed. In some circumstances, the submission period may be extended, but any requests must be made in writing, and agreed by the EPSRC, before the original submission period expires.

PURPOSE OF THE FINAL REPORT

The purpose of the Final Report is to allow the EPSRC to make an assessment of the conduct of a research project, or in this case, a Platform Grant, to gauge its success in meeting its agreed objectives and to make an assessment of the way it has been used to support and enhance the activities of the research group. The Final Report forms an integral part of EPSRC’s evaluation framework, contributing both to the assessment of individual projects and to the evaluation of the overall EPSRC research and training portfolio. In addition, Final Report data may be used more broadly in support of the public awareness and understanding of science and engineering.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Assessment is undertaken by peer review. A two stage assessment process is followed, comprising a written review by a number of independent assessors, one of whom will have been a referee on the original research proposal, followed by consideration by a panel. In both cases, comments are sought with the ultimate aim of gauging the ‘added value’ achieved through the Platform funding. Assessors and panel members will normally be drawn from the EPSRC College. (For more information on the EPSRC college and peer review please see the EPSRC web site http://www.epsrc.ac.uk.)

Assessors typically provide both a narrative assessment of the research undertaken and a rating against a number of specially tailored evaluation criteria, as follows:

  1. Scientific Achievement
  2. Strategic Development;
  3. Impact
  4. Staffing
  5. Communication of Research Outputs
  6. Cost-effectiveness
  7. Overall added value.

Scientific achievement:

  • Scientific achievements of the group as a direct result of Platform funding in terms of new research directions, adventurous research and development of collaborative relationships.

  • To what extent has the funding allowed the group to strengthen its international standing. 

Strategic Development:
  • The extent to which a group had a clearly defined vision for the Platform Grant and have subsequently used the funding to take a more strategic view of their research portfolio.

Impact:
  • Significance of key advances that may have occurred or may potentially occur as a result of the Platform funding e.g. in terms of improved scientific understanding, contribution to quality of life, relevance to stakeholders or potential for exploitation.

Staffing: 
  • The extent to which the Platform Grant has enabled the retention and development of key research staff as well as development of the group as a whole e.g. through visiting researchers or the introduction of new research expertise to the group.

Communication of Research Outputs:
  • Dissemination to other researchers
  • Extent and influence of relationships with research users (inc. other academics) and industry
  • Contribution to public awareness and understanding 

Cost-effectiveness:
  • Cost-effectiveness and value for money of the project
  • Use of resources, particularly staff and if awarded, equipment and facilities
  • Non-EPSRC contributions
  • Follow-on support 

Overall added value:
  • Taking all of the other factors into account, the extent to which Platform funding has provided added value to the group i.e. to what extent could the group have achieved their aims through standard research grants alone? 

The Principal Investigator will be provided with the assessors’ comments and given an opportunity to respond to any factual inaccuracies, prior to the Final Report being seen by the panel.

The panel will finalise the individual criteria grades and agree an overall grade that takes into account the relevance of the individual criteria to each Platform Grant. The Final Report is the principal mechanism for researchers to report activities and achievements arising from an EPSRC grant. Feedback on the assessment, in the form of final gradings and assessors’ comments, will be provided to the Principal Investigator and will also be made available as an input to the appraisal of any future proposals submitted to EPSRC.

HOW TO COMPLETE THE DOCUMENTATION

The Final Report must be completed by the Principal Investigator, with input from any co-investigators and collaborators as appropriate, and submitted to the EPSRC no later than 3 months from the completion of the grant

The contents of the Final Report will be treated in confidence by the EPSRC and its assessors, although the project summary may be published on the EPSRC web site.

The Final Report comprises three parts:

and where relevant,

The report is an opportunity to describe the use to which the Platform Grant has been put. The Principal Investigator may choose to use narrative text alone, or to include diagrams. Any material, whether text or diagrams, over and above six sides will not be accepted, except in cases where prior consent has been given. Please ensure, however, that any information which should be regarded as commercial-in-confidence is clearly marked as such and put in a separate, additional annex to the other documentation with an appropriate explanation. In the case of electronic submission (see below), confidential material can be sent as a separate PDF file clearly marked as such in the accompanying description.

Prescriptions regarding the length and content of the Final report are aimed at ensuring equitable and transparent peer review processes. The fair assessment of Final Reports and consequent judgements about research outputs demand that the reports of all projects are treated in the same manner. It is the EPSRC’s intention that these prescriptions allow adequate reporting opportunity for investigators whilst at the same time allowing for clear, fair and timely assessment by reviewers.

FINAL REPORTS FOR PROJECTS COMPRISING TWO OR MORE GRANTS

In cases where there is a joint platform grant, each Principal Investigator is responsible for the submission of a completed Final Report form. However, only a single narrative report of six sides covering the whole of the project is required. The completed forms and single report will be assessed together by the same reviewers, and the project will be graded as a single whole.

The Final Report form is intended to capture new information, which can be used as an input to evaluation, public awareness and other data based activities, as well as aiding assessment of the Platform Grant. Much of this will involve the grant holder in updating ‘potential’ or ‘expected’ data elicited at the proposal stage. Wherever possible, sections of the form have been pre-filled, drawing on information from the proposal. Please make clear any amendments to the pre-filled sections as necessary. Specific guidance on the different sections in the form follows.

Data Protection Act 1998

The information that you provide will be used in the processing of all aspects of the Final Report and could be made available to national/international assessors and EPSRC Peer Review Panels for that purpose.

In addition, the information may be used:

This information will remain stored for as long as the historical record is required.

If you have any queries regarding this statement please contact the EPSRC Data Protection Officer (Telephone +44 (0) 1793 444 100).

Notes for Guidance on Completing an Individual Grant Review Form and Report (Fellowships)

GENERAL

At the end of a Fellowship grant, the Fellow is required to submit a report detailing the outcome of the Fellowship to satisfy EPSRC’s accountability requirements. The report, called the Final Report (Fellowships), comprises a pre-printed form (the Form), and a detailed narrative report (the Report). It is similar to the Final Report required at the end of any EPSRC standard Research Grant.

Submission of a Final Report is required within 3 months of the end of the Fellowship. A financial penalty will be imposed on the Fellow’s employing organisation if the complete Final Report is received after this deadline. In addition, further funding applications from the Fellow will not be considered if the Final Report is outstanding or has been submitted but not accepted (e.g. for being incomplete). It is the responsibility of the Fellow, and their employing organisation, to ensure that the Final Report is received by EPSRC within the period allowed. In some circumstances the submission period may be extended, but any requests must be made in writing and agreed by EPSRC before the original submission period expires.

PURPOSE OF THE FINAL REPORT

The purpose of the Final Report is to allow the EPSRC to make an assessment of the conduct of a Fellowship, its success in meeting its agreed objectives, and to make a preliminary assessment of its quality and impact. The Final Report Form and accompanying Report, forms an integral part of EPSRC’s evaluation framework, contributing both to the assessment of individual projects and to the evaluation of the overall EPSRC research and training portfolio. In addition, Final Report data may be used more broadly in support of the public understanding of science and engineering.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Assessment is undertaken by peer review and is normally a two stage process: postal review by a number of assessors, (one of whom will normally have been a referee on the original Fellowship proposal), followed by consideration by a peer review panel. In both stages, comments are sought on the achievements/advances arising from the Fellowship and the quality and impact of its results. Assessors and Panel members are normally drawn from EPSRC’s College of Experts (for more information see the Peer Review & College System page on the EPSRC web site http://www.epsrc.ac.uk).

Assessors provide a narrative assessment of the Fellowship, and a rating against seven criteria as follows:

  1. Research Quality
  2. Research Planning and Practice
  3. Potential Scientific Impact
  4. Impact of the Fellowship on the Fellow’s Prospects / Plans
  5. Fellow’s Standing in the Research Community
  6. Potential Benefits to Society
  7. Public Awareness Role Fulfilment

The Principal Investigator will be provided with the assessors’ comments and given an opportunity to respond to any factual inaccuracies, prior to the Final Report being seen by the panel.

The Panel of experts also agree an overall grade, taking into account the relevance of the individual criteria to the Fellowship. Final ratings and assessors’ comments will be fed back to the Fellow, and will be taken into account in the appraisal of future proposals submitted to EPSRC. Where the Fellowship forms part of a larger strategic programme or initiative, there may be additional assessment requirements, which will have been communicated in the Award letter.

HOW TO COMPLETE THE DOCUMENTATION

The Final Report Form and the detailed narrative Report must be completed by the Principal Investigator, with input from any co-investigators and collaborators as appropriate, and submitted to the EPSRC no later than 3 months from the completion of the grant .

The contents of the Final Report will be treated in confidence by the EPSRC and its assessors, although the project summary may be published on the EPSRC web site.

The Final Report comprises three parts:

The report is an opportunity to describe the research project undertaken. The Principal Investigator may choose to use narrative text alone, or to include diagrams. Any material, whether text or diagrams, over and above six sides will not be accepted. Please ensure, however, that any information which should be regarded as commercial-in-confidence is clearly marked as such and put in a separate annex to the other documentation with an appropriate explanation.

Prescriptions regarding the length and content of the Final Report are aimed at ensuring equitable and transparent peer review processes. The fair assessment of Final Reports and consequent judgements about research outputs demand that the reports of all projects are treated in the same manner. It is the EPSRC’s intention that these prescriptions allow adequate reporting opportunity for investigators whilst at the same time allowing for clear, fair and timely assessment by reviewers.

The Final Report form is intended to capture new information, which can be used as an input to evaluation, public awareness and other data based activities, as well as aiding assessment of the research project. Much of this will involve the grant holder in updating ‘potential’ or ‘expected’ data elicited at the research proposal stage. Wherever possible, sections of the form have been pre-filled, drawing on information from the proposal. Please make clear any amendments to the pre-filled sections as necessary. Specific guidance on the different sections in the form follows:

Data Protection Act 1998

The information that you provide will be used in the processing of all aspects of the Final Report and could be made available to national/international assessors and EPSRC Peer Review Panels for that purpose.

In addition, the information may be used:

This information will remain stored for as long as the historical record is required.

If you have any queries regarding this statement please contact the EPSRC Data Protection Officer (Telephone +44 (0) 1793 444 100).

Objectives and Research Summary

The original objectives of the project as defined in the research proposal are listed on the Form. It is recognised that research objectives may change over the life of a project. Any amendments to your objectives should be identified in the box provided. Please explain in your accompanying report how/why the objectives changed and how this affected the project.

Project Summary

The project summary/abstract you provided at the time of the proposal is reproduced for information. You are asked now to provide a summary of the project outcomes in order to assist the EPSRC in promoting the public awareness of science & engineering. This summary should therefore be written for a non-specialist audience and should address the main aims of the research, the results – indicating anything new or unusual - and indicating how science and society more widely will benefit from this work. You should note that EPSRC might publish this summary. The typical audience for this material will be opinion-formers and policy makers, and the general public, as well as the scientific community. Space is also provided for you to enter the address of any web site containing further details of the research. This address may be published with the summary and/or included on the EPSRC web site. The Review report is your opportunity to provide a technical summary of the project.

Beneficiaries

The beneficiaries at the time of the proposal are reproduced for information and to aid later assessment by peer review. There is no need to update this information.

Staff Employed on the Research Project (Standard and Platform only)

Details of key members of the project team (excluding the Principal Investigator and any co-investigators) should be provided. These should include the name, grade & gender of the researcher, their nationality (please enter as country of nationality) and their date of birth, their contribution to the project and any qualifications gained as a result of the project. Information is also sought on subsequent employment. Details for EPSRC project students should be included where appropriate. EPSRC quota or Doctoral Training Account students awarded to a department, or any staff supported by collaboration through the grant should not be included. Involvement of such students or staff in the research project can be described in the accompanying report.

Research Results- Summary

You are asked to provide information on the results arising directly from the research funded through this grant.   Outcomes reported here should have been at least accepted for publication.    Please provide total numbers of publications arising from this work in each of the types indicated on the form (journal, conference papers etc).  In addition, you are asked to provide details of up to five significant publications.  Under Author(s), please list first the name of the author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.   

Research Results- Publications

You are asked to provide details of up to five significant publications. Under Author(s), please list first the name of the author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.

Other Results from the Research (not OTGs)

Potential or actual exploitation of the research results should be described. The issue of the wider impact of the research (the use of research results for other research) should be addressed in the accompanying report. A "Totals Column" is provided to indicate the total number of patents, training courses etc resulting from their project. If there is more than one result of a particular type, please use the "Details" and “Reference” box to capture a collective picture of the result in question (e.g. all the patent numbers can be listed in this one box).

Follow-on-Support (not Fellowships)

Any further research funding resulting primarily as a result of research undertaken on this project should be described (excluding any contributions from collaborators described at the time of proposal submission). Any research funding applied for, where a decision is still pending at the time of submitting the report, can be described in the accompanying report.  Please indicate the total support from each of the listed funding bodies and provide a breakdown in the "Details" and "Reference" boxes (e.g. list all the EPSRC grants which contribute to the total support). 

Related Support Awarded/Pending (Fellowships only)

Any research funding that has been granted primarily as a result of work supported by the Fellowship should be listed. Research funding that has been applied for, but where a decision is still pending at the time of submitting the IGR report, should also be listed and may be described in the Review Report.

Project Partners (formerly termed ‘Collaborators’) (Standard, OTG and Platform only)

Details of project partners and their planned contribution to the research elicited at the research proposal stage have been provided where appropriate. Space is provided for completion of the actual project partner details. Unless you update the details, we will assume the proposed details remained in place. The information is important in helping us to have a complete picture of the research portfolio supported. In addition, we would welcome a review from each partner organisation commenting on the research undertaken and its benefits, perceived or actual. This should be included as an attachment.

Use of Services (Standard and Platform only)

The awarded usage of any EPSRC facilities or services has been provided where appropriate. The actual usage of any EPSRC facilities or services should be given. Information should also be given on any additional EPSRC facilities usage.

Grant Additional/Specific Conditions and Information

Any additional conditions specified by EPSRC at the time of announcement and information contained on the Grant Offer letter are reproduced for information.

Final Report Self Assessment Form

This form is similar to the assessor’s pro-forma and is an integral part of the Final Report. Its purpose is to provide the Principal Investigator with the opportunity to identify the most relevant aspects of the research project in terms of the assessment criteria, and to draw attention to particular areas of achievement. It should be completed and returned with the Final Report .

Narrative Report (Standard and OTG only)

The narrative report is intended to provide a concise description of the research project undertaken and the results achieved. It is an opportunity for the grant holder to describe in their own words what they did and why it was important.  The role of the Final Report in the evaluation of EPSRC’s research portfolio depends upon the submission of reports that provide sufficient information to be meaningfully assessed.  With this in mind, the EPSRC reserves the right to reject any narrative report which, in its view, does not allow an assessor to come to a properly considered conclusion about the work being reported.  Please bear in mind that assessment of the report will be carried out by researchers in the general area of interest as well as particular experts in the field. The report must not exceed the equivalent of six A4 pages and it should be submitted with the review form.  For electronic submission, the review report and any confidential annexes must be converted to PDF format and attached to the form. 

;Suggestions for the report structure and aspects to be covered are described below.

Background/Context

A description of the international context of the research.

Key Advances and Supporting Methodology

An exploration of the research achievements described in the review form in more depth, highlighting those achievements against which you would wish the outcome of the project to be assessed.  Any additional data not already requested on the Review Form that you consider relevant and which you would want assessors to take into account should also be included. 

For grants that are part of a larger project or programme, reference should be made to the extent to which the grant has contributed to meeting the objectives of the programme as a whole.  Please include the grant reference numbers of any associated grants.

Project Plan Review

Any changes to the original plan and the reason for these changes, including any circumstances that aided or impeded the progress of the research (and actions taken to overcome any obstacles)

Research Impact and Benefits to Society

Identification of the actual and/or expected impact of the research in influencing other research, placing the research in a national and international context.  (Relevant information may include use of the work by collaborative or third parties, interest expressed by industry in the research results and progress towards future potential exploitation). 

Explanation of Expenditure

The funds provided to you are shown on the Final Report form.  Please explain how these funds were spent.  Justification should be given of any significant variance in the original spending plans.  Please identify the contribution of any project partner(s) (collaborator(s)).  Details should also be given of any EPSRC-sponsored or organised events attended during the period of the grant.

Further Research or Dissemination Activities

A description of plans for any further work related to this area of research, including a description of dissemination and any exploitation routes identified and the steps taken to disseminate knowledge, both to beneficiaries and the wider public.

Narrative Report (Platform)

NARRATIVE REPORT

The narrative report is intended to provide a concise description of the work undertaken through the Platform Grant and the results achieved. It is an opportunity for the grant holder to describe in their own words how the Platform funding was used to benefit the research group. The role of the Final Report in the evaluation of EPSRC’s research portfolio depends upon the submission of reports that provide sufficient information to be meaningfully assessed. With this in mind, the EPSRC reserves the right to reject any narrative report which, in its view, does not allow an assessor to come to a properly considered conclusion about the work being reported. Please bear in mind that assessment of the report will be carried out by researchers in the general area of interest as well as particular experts in the field. The report must not exceed the equivalent of six A4 pages and it should be submitted with the review form. For electronic submission, the review report and any confidential annexes must be converted to PDF format and attached to the form.

Suggestions for the report structure and aspects to be covered are described below:

Background/Context

You should briefly describe the background to both the research group and the area of research in which the Platform Grant has been used, with the aim of putting the work supported by the Platform funding into context. This section should include a brief track record of the investigators as well as research staff directly supported on the Platform Grant, indicating any staffing changes during the period of the award. You should also include any staff development and progression that has occurred during the course of the grant. You should highlight any added value the platform grant has had in allowing retention of key researchers. If members of the group have moved on, information should be provided as to their subsequent destinations.

Detailed Description of the Work the Platform Grant has Facilitated

This section should also include the ways in which research findings have been disseminated to the wider community (including the general public) as well as any specific steps towards exploitation of outputs. How has this work benefited from the special nature of the Platform Grant? Any additional data not already requested on the form that you consider relevant and which you would want assessors to take into account should also be included. Impact and Benefits to Society Identification of the actual and/or expected impact of the work supported by the Platform Grant in influencing other research, placing the research in a national and international context. (Relevant information may include use of the work by collaborative or third parties, interest expressed by industry in the research results and progress towards future potential exploitation).

Complementarity

A description of how the resources provided through the Platform Grant have complemented other work that has taken place within the research group. Where the Platform funding has contributed to a wider programme of work, reference should be made to the extent to which the grant has contributed to meeting the objectives of the programme as a whole. Please include the grant reference numbers of any associated grants. Management Describe the management arrangements in place during the Platform Grant, making reference to any difficulties faced and/or overcome to date (e.g. loss of key staff etc).

Explanation of Expenditure

The funds provided to you are shown on the Final Report form. Please explain how these funds were spent. Justification should be given of any significant variance in the original spending plans. Please identify the contribution of any collaborator(s). Details should also be given of any EPSRC-sponsored or organised events attended during the period of the grant.

The Final Report will be sent to assessors as for all other grants, and will then be seen by a peer review panel. Assessors and panels will be provided with guidance as to the particular nature of the grant.

Narrative Report (Fellowship)

The narrative report is intended to provide a concise description of the research supported by the Fellowship, and the results achieved. It is an opportunity for you to describe your work and say why it was important. The role of the Final Report in the evaluation of EPSRC’s research portfolio depends upon the submission of reports that provide sufficient information to be meaningfully assessed. With this in mind, the EPSRC reserves the right to reject any narrative report which, in its view, does not allow a assessor to come to a properly considered conclusion about the work being reported. Please bear in mind that assessment of the report will be carried out by researchers in the general area of interest as well as particular experts in the field. The Report must not exceed six A4 sides of narrative text, including figures, and it should be submitted with the review form. For electronic submission, the review report and any confidential annexes must be converted to PDF format and attached to the form.

Suggestions for the report structure and aspects to be covered are described below.

Background/Context

 A description of the international context of the research.

Executive Summary

 A brief overview of your objectives when you applied for the Fellowship, and a statement as to how well they have been met. • Key Advances and Supporting Methodology A detailed overview of the research achievements stated in the Final Report Form. Highlight those achievements against which you would wish the outcome of the project to be assessed. Any additional data not already requested on the Review Form that you consider relevant, and which you would want assessors to take into account, should also be included. For Fellowships that directly support a larger project or programme reference should be made to the extent to which the grant has contributed to meeting the objectives of the programme as a whole.

Research Plan Review

Any changes to the original plan, and the reason for these changes, including any circumstances that aided or impeded the progress of the research (and actions taken to overcome any obstacles).

Research Impact and Benefits to Society

 Place the research in a proper national/international context by identifying its actual and/or expected influence on other research. (Relevant information may include use of the work by collaborative or third parties, interest expressed by industry in the research results, and progress towards future potential exploitation).

Explanation of Expenditure

 The funds provided to you are shown on the Final Report form. Please explain how these funds were spent. Justification should be given, of any significant variance in the original spending plans. Please identify the contribution of any collaborator (s). Include a brief statement describing the use of non-salary budget lines awarded in the Fellowship. Details should also be given of any EPSRC-sponsored or organised events that you attended during the Fellowship.

Outcomes - Fellow

Describe the ‘Added Value’ impact of the Fellowship on your career, and in terms of new collaborations / partnerships. If you changed post/institutions during or as a result of the Fellowship, note each of the changes and comment on the extent to which your holding the Fellowship was a factor in the move. Give an address for future correspondence.

Support of employing organisation

Describe the level, type and quality of support provided to you by the grant-holding institution. Such support could include, but is not limited to: mentoring, use of facilities/staff, training (including project management), and support with teaching workload (if appropriate).

Dissemination Activities and Further Research

 A description of the steps taken to disseminate knowledge to the research community, including any novel exploitation routes identified, and a description of any plans for further work related to this area of research.

Public Awareness Activities

A description of steps taken to inform identified beneficiaries outside the research community, and the wider public, of the nature, aims and benefits of the work supported by the Fellowship.

Please also indicate whether you would be willing to assist EPSRC in relevant future promotional activity. Examples of such activity could include: speaking at conferences/seminars; contributing to the promotion of new EPSRC funding schemes; assisting with the launch of new calls for proposals; providing articles describing your research in lay terms for inclusion in EPSRC publicity material.

Scheme Effectiveness

Comment on the extent to which the Fellowship has met the objectives of the scheme under which it was awarded.

GUIDANCE FOR COMPLETING THE INDIVIDUAL GRANT REVIEW ASSESSORS’ FORM

BACKGROUND

EPSRC seeks to construct a portfolio of high quality projects which has the correct mix and emphasis to provide the knowledge and skilled people to meet the nation’s future scientific and economic needs. The formal review at the completion of individual grants plays an important role in meeting this aim. The main purposes of the review, therefore, include:

-         the research which has been undertaken
-         the people trained in association with the project

providing reassurance that the outputs (knowledge and people) can flow to potential users, including other academic colleagues, and that suitable relationships are in place

  • checking that the project has been soundly managed in accordance with good project management practice;

  • taking forward the outcome of the assessment process, based on the views of expert assessors and the investigator’s own self-assessment, as an input to the appraisal of future research proposals.

    scheme specific guidance - Platform

    Platform Grants are one of the key mechanisms by which EPSRC strives towards maintaining and improving the strength of the UK engineering and science base, in this instance by supporting, through underpinning funding, those UK groups considered to be world leading in their fields. Platform funding is aimed at providing support for retention of key research staff (Research Associates) with the aim of providing stability to these groups as well as opportunities to carry out longer term and more speculative research and to enhance their national and international networking. This scheme is currently open to groups working in the fields of engineering, materials, information technology and computer science.

    Those groups that have gained a Platform Grant award will have had to demonstrate the following:

    • That the group has an internationally leading reputation.
    • That the group has a track record in obtaining substantial levels of support from EPSRC and other funding sources, including industry.
    • That the group would use the platform grant as an opportunity to take a more strategic view of its research and/or as a means of developing and strengthening the group.
    • The importance and timeliness of the research area and/or the relevance to the user community that the group underpins.
    • How the activity will be managed in terms of staff deployment within the Platform Grant
    All Schemes

    The notes below are intended to provide assessors with uniform guidance for the completion of the assessors form. They should be read in conjunction with any other specific guidance supplied in connection with the particular programme or scheme.

    Note that Final Reports should be assessed on the basis of the science reported, not the reputation or background of the grantholder(s).

    You should note that your assessment form will be sent back, unattributed, to the investigator, who will then be allowed the opportunity to comment on any factual errors and answer any specific queries you have raised.

    You should provide your own assessment of the grant by placing a tick within the appropriate box for each of the assessment criteria. It will assist EPSRC if you can rate your own confidence in your ability (high, medium or low) to assess each aspect of the grant in the far right box.

    You should ensure that the ratings summary is consistent with comments made in the narrative section.

    RATINGS

    For each assessment criteria, you are asked to rate the grant on a five-point scale. A general indication of the expectations against the scoring range is given below:

    • At the most successful end we would expect projects where the programme has been managed to the highest standard possible, with resources utilised in the most effective, economic and efficient manner.
    • A mid-ranking project would be one where the research programme has been undertaken in a reasonable and satisfactory manner.
    • At the most unsuccessful end, we would expect there to be major problems in the research programme, with results not justifying the resources used.
    NARRATIVE SECTION

    A full justification of the rating scores should be included. The prompts are provided as a reminder of those issues that are likely to be most significant in determining the overall rating of the project. However, the prompts and the space for your responses allocated next to them are offered purely for guidance. You should, therefore, feel free to comment on any additional aspects of the finished project that you believe to be important. If you are unable to fit all your comments into the space available, please use continuation sheets. This form (and any continuation sheets) will be passed unattributed to the Principal Investigator.

    CODE OF PRACTICE

    EPSRC has adopted a Code of Practice for all those who assist in the work of the Research Council. This embraces the “Seven Principles of Public Life” drawn up by the Nolan Committee and endorsed by Parliament. An important aspect of this Code is the avoidance of any conflicts between personal interests and the interests of the EPSRC. In the context of assessment of projects, a conflict of interest might arise, for example, if an assessor had a close working relationship, or personal connections, with any individual(s) in the department from which the project originated. Such interests may be indirect and relate to immediate family members or any other persons living in the same household as the assessor. The acid test is whether a member of the public, knowing the facts of the situation, might reasonably think that judgement could be influenced by the possibility of private or commercial gain.

    If you believe that your involvement in assessing a particular project might be perceived as a conflict of interest, you should decline the invitation to act as an assessor. Please contact the office if you feel that you need further advice on this matter.

    Data Protection Act 1998

    The information that you provide will be used in the processing of all aspects of the grant. This will include recording on the in-house grants processing computer and management information systems, and in the preparation of material for applicants and for use by EPSRC peer review panels.

    In addition information may be used in the generation and collation of output and performance indicators and other management statistics. It may also be used in policy and strategy studies to inform management in carrying out the business of Council and in improving the business processes.

    This information will remain stored for as long as the historical record is required.

    If you have any queries regarding this statement please contact the EPSRC Data Protection Officer (Telephone +44 (0) 1793 444 100).

    Specific Guidance on completing a Standard final Report Assessors Form

    In completing the Final Report, investigators are asked to complete a self-assessment pro-forma. The following criteria are used as the basis for their self-assessment as well as for your assessment:

    Research Quality:
    • underlying quality of the research, originality and novelty
    • the degree of risk involved in the project (NB a high-risk project should still be scored on the quality of the science)

    Research Planning and Practice:
    • scientific/technological approach suitability and effectiveness of the methodology, techniques, management and expertise
    • extent to which planned and additional objectives achieved and/or review of how/why objectives changed & how this affected the project
    • project management, including - where relevant - how the challenges arising from the degree of risk inherent in the project have been managed

    Potential Scientific Impact:
    • significance of key advances
    • potential impact on other research

    Quality of Training & Experience Provided:
    • level and quality of training and opportunity for career progression, RAs, students, collaborators
    • contribution to the provision of trained staff to meet national needs

    Communication of Research Outputs
    • dissemination to other researchers
    • extent and influence of relationships with research users [inc. other academics] and industry
    • contribution to public understanding

    Potential Benefits to Society:
    • contribution to quality of life
    • relevance to beneficiaries
    • potential for exploitation (development of new or improved products, processes and services)
    • outputs and timescales

    Cost-effectiveness:
    • cost-effectiveness and value for money of the project
    • use of resources, particularly staff, equipment and facilities
    • non-EPSRC contributions
    • follow-on support

    Please use the section for additional comments to discuss the grantholders’ self-assessment, particularly any aspects where your respective views diverge. You may also use this space to expand on any points you have made within the narrative section or to include other factors that you believe to be important.

    Any comments that you would prefer the Principal Investigator not to see should be completed on a separate sheet of paper, clearly headed “confidential comments”.

    Specific Guidance for completing a Platform Final Report Assessor's Form

    The following criteria are used as the basis for the assessment and have been tailored to assess the special nature of Platform Grant funding:

    Scientific achievement:
    • Scientific achievements of the group as a direct result of Platform funding in terms of new research directions, adventurous research and development of collaborative relationships.
    • To what extent has the funding allowed the group to strengthen its international standing.

    Strategic Development:
    • The extent to which a group had a clearly defined vision for the Platform Grant and have subsequently used the funding to take a more strategic view of their research portfolio.

    Impact:
    • Significance of key advances that may have occurred or may potentially occur as a result of the Platform funding e.g. in terms of improved scientific understanding, contribution to quality of life, relevance to stakeholders or potential for exploitation.

    Staffing:
    • The extent to which the Platform Grant has enabled the retention and development of key research staff as well as development of the group as a whole e.g. through visiting researchers or the introduction of new research expertise to the group.

    Communication of Research Outputs:
    • Dissemination to other researchers
    • Extent and influence of relationships with research users [inc. other academics] and industry
    • Contribution to public awareness and understanding

    Cost-effectiveness:
    • Cost-effectiveness and value for money of the project
    • Use of resources, particularly staff and if awarded, equipment and facilities
    • Non-EPSRC contributions
    • Follow-on support

    Overall added value:
    • Taking all of the other factors into account, the extent to which Platform funding has provided added value to the group i.e. to what extent could the group have achieved their aims through standard research grants alone?

    Please use the section for additional comments to discuss the grantholders’ self-assessment, particularly any aspects where your respective views diverge. You may also use this space to expand on any points you have made within the narrative section or to include other factors that you believe to be important.

    Any comments that you would prefer the Principal Investigator not to see should be completed on a separate sheet of paper, clearly headed “confidential comments”.

    Specific Guidance for completing a Fellowship Final Report Assessor's Form

    Research Quality:
    • underlying quality of the research, originality and novelty

    Research Planning and Practice:
    • scientific/technological approach
    • suitability and effectiveness of the methodology, techniques, management and expertise
    • extent to which planned and additional objectives achieved
    • project management

    Potential Scientific Impact:
    • significance of key advances
    • potential impact on other research

    Impact on Fellow’s Prospects/Plans:
    • value of the Fellowship to:
    • career progression
    • opportunities for the Fellow

    Fellow’s Standing in the Research Community:
    • development of the Fellow’s standing in the research community during the period of the Fellowship

    Potential Benefits to Society:
    • contribution to quality of life
    • relevance to beneficiaries
    • potential for exploitation (development of new or improved products, processes and services)
    • outputs and timescales

    Public Awareness Role Fulfilment:
    • Fellow’s contribution to increased public awareness of research and science in national life

    Please use the section for additional comments to discuss the grantholders’ self-assessment, particularly any aspects where your respective views diverge. You may also use this space to expand on any points you have made within the narrative section or to include other factors that you believe to be important.

    Any comments that you would prefer the Principal Investigator not to see should be completed on a separate sheet of paper, clearly headed “confidential comments”.

      Specific Guidance for completing an Overseas Travel Grant Final Report Assessor's Form

    The following criteria are used as the basis for the assessment:

    Research Quality:
    • underlying quality of the research, originality and novelty

    Research Planning and Practice:
    • scientific/technological approach
    • suitability and effectiveness of the methodology, techniques, management and expertise
    • extent to which planned and additional objectives achieved
    • project management

    Potential Scientific Impact:
    • significance of key advances
    • potential impact on other research

    Communication of Research Outputs:
    • dissemination to other researchers
    • dissemination to UK community
    • extent and influence of relationships with research users [inc. other academics] and industry
    • acquisition of skills
    • quality of collaboration
    • productivity
    • contribution to public understanding

    Potential Benefits to Society:
    • contribution to quality of life
    • relevance to beneficiaries
    • potential for exploitation (development of new or improved products, processes and services)
    • outputs and timescales

    Cost-effectiveness:
    • cost-effectiveness and value for money of the project
    • use of resources
    • non-EPSRC contributions
    • follow-on support

    Specific Guidance for completing a MTP Final Report Assessor's Form

    Relevance to National Need

    • the extent to which the MTP met an identified national need

    Criticality of EPSRC Support

    • the extent to which EPSRC support was critical to the delivery of this MTP

    Content & Method of Delivery

    • course content

    • course assessment

    • method of delivery

    • extent of innovation in delivery of method

    Cost-effectiveness

    • cost-effectiveness & value for money of the MTP, with regard to:

    • module development

    • delivery

    • promotion

    • any equipment costs

    Level of Employer/User Engagement

    • involvement of employers/ collaborators in course design & delivery

    • level of employers’/collaborators’ contribution (cash and in-kind

    Value & Relevance of Training Opportunities

    • the degree to which the course has been adapted to the needs of employers

    Relationship to other Training Provision and Future Support

    • extent to which the MTP fits in with other postgraduate training at the sect oral, regional and national level

    • to what degree has funding been secured to continue the training beyond the EPSRC support

    Referee Form Functions

    General

    Maintaining anonymity

    Please note that electronic referee forms will NOT be edited before being fed back to applicants. As with the paper form, please take care to avoid identifying yourself in the form itself. To send us confidential information electronically, please see below. 

    Confidential comments

    Any comments that you would prefer the propose not to see should be included as an 'attachment' to the form and labeled with the grant reference and "confidential comments". Upload the attachment, including suitable information in the 'description of document box'. Please also tick the 'confidential' box on the attachments screen after you have uploaded the document. Note that only Acrobat (.pdf) and Word (.doc) files are currently supported for upload.  

    GUIDANCE FOR COMPLETING THE REFEREE REPORT FORM

    The notes below are intended to provide referees with specific guidance for the completion of the referees’ form.  They should be read in conjunction with any other specific guidance supplied in connection with the particular programme or scheme.  Additional guidance on the role of the referee in EPSRC's peer review can be found on our website at http://www.epsrc.ac.uk//Refereeing

    SECTION 1: Before proceeding with your assessment, we ask that you consider the following:

    Referee Protocols

    EPSRC has adopted a code of practice for all those who assist in the work of the Council which embraces the "Seven Principles of Public Life" drawn up by the Nolan Committee and endorsed by Parliament.  These Principles are described in more detail on the EPSRC web site and refer to selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.  The impact of this code is described in more detail below.

    Conflicts of Interest

    An important aspect of this code is the avoidance of any conflicts between personal interests and the interests of the EPSRC.  In the context of peer review of research proposals and final report, a conflict of interest might arise, for example, if a referee has, or has had in the past, a close working relationship, financial or personal connections with any individual(s) in the academic department(s) or organisation (or any collaborating company or body) from which a proposal or final report originates.  Such interests may be indirect and relate to immediate family members or any other persons living in the same household as the assessor.  The acid test is whether a member of the public, knowing the facts of the situation, might reasonably think the judgement could be influenced by the potential conflict of interest.

    If you think that your involvement in assessing a particular research proposal or final report might be perceived as a conflict of interest, you should decline the invitation to act as a referee as soon as possible.  Please contact the office if you feel that you need further advice about this matter.

    On occasion, applicants ask that certain individuals are not asked to referee their proposals.  With this in mind please do not show the proposal to others or ask someone to referee the proposal in your place without the express agreement of the EPSRC.

    Guidance for Reviewers on Handling Approaches from Researchers

    The EPSRC operates an open peer review process, while at the same time preserving referee anonymity.  Referees are asked to treat proposals in confidence and proposers are given the opportunity to respond to any factual inaccuracies made by the referees.  The EPSRC expects all parties to respect the roles of all involved in the peer review process.

    The EPSRC will not disclose to researchers who reviewed their proposal.  It is therefore unacceptable for researchers to approach individuals who they think might have reviewed their proposal.  If such a situation does occur, the EPSRC advises the reviewer not to enter into a debate about whether or not they reviewed a proposal.  The reviewer should then inform the EPSRC so that an appropriate form of action can be taken.  The relevant EPSRC contacts are as follows:

    Engineering Process Interfacing Manager - Chris Elson, +44 (0) 1793 444 504

    Science Process Interface Manager - Jo Garrad, +44 (0) 1793 444 348

    Technology Process Interface Manager - Matthew Griffiths, +44 (0) 1793 444 464

    Protection of Ideas and Scientific Misconduct

    The integrity of peer review is dependent on the selflessness of reviewers.  All papers relating to the consideration of proposals and final reports must be treated as strictly confidential and seen for the purpose of review only.  After assessment they should either be returned to the Office or shredded.  Referees must not take advantage of any information obtained as a result of their role, and should refer any questions to the Office, and must not contact applicants direct.

    Progress in scientific and engineering research depends on honesty in the presentation of genuine results.  The EPSRC takes scientific misconduct, including misrepresentation in research proposals, very seriously and would wish that any instances which are observed should be drawn to its attention as a matter of urgency.  A Good Practice Guide is available on the EPSRC web site. This document gives further advice, and questions about this issue arising from the review of proposals or final reports should be raised with the Office.

    Equal Opportunities

    EPSRC is committed to equal opportunities in all its activities.  Reviewers should ensure that they avoid any bias in the assessment of proposals and final reports due to gender, disability, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or religious belief.  Comments by the referees must not contravene this policy.  Defamatory or otherwise actionable comments should also be avoided.

    Level of confidence in your ability to provide an assessment of the proposal

    Given the importance of high quality referee reports to the peer review process, it is essential that you can speak with confidence when assessing the  proposal, justifying your comments in full. Perhaps because of the nature of the proposal, you may feel that you are only able to comment on some aspects of it (see below). For this reason, confidence boxes are provided against each section.  These boxes are the opportunity to tell us about your own confidence, or otherwise, in being able to make your assessment, not your confidence in the success of the proposal if it were funded.  If, for any reason, you feel that you were not able to confidently assess the proposal, please advise EPSRC.

    SECTION 2: A full justification for your assessment of the proposal should be included here.  The prompts are provided as a reminder of those issues that are likely to be most significant in determining the overall merit of a proposal. However, the relative spacing devoted to each prompt should not constrain your response: please provide as full a response as you believe you are qualified to.

    Assessment Criteria

    You are asked to assess the proposal against a number of criteria.  These criteria may vary according to the scheme or programme the proposal has been submitted to.  For the vast majority of proposals submitted to EPSRC – those submitted to our ‘responsive mode’ scheme - the criteria are:

    ·        Research quality

    ·        Adventure (high-risk with high potential)

    ·        Research impact

    ·        Collaboration

    ·        Dissemination

    ·        Resources & Management arrangements

    Prompts are given on the assessment form against each of these criteria.  Where a scheme or programme uses other criteria, details will be given either on the form itself or in additional guidance associated with that programme. 

    Multi- or Interdisciplinary Proposals

    For guidance, the EPSRC considers as “interdisciplinary” research that may typically include some or all of the following attributes:

    • The novelty of the proposal lies in the combination of its parts not necessarily each individual part;

    • The research applies the tools of one field to another in a new way;

    • The research may necessitate an investigator moving from their usual discipline of research;

    • The research may require greater resources than average for the subject;

    • It is unlikely that an individual referee will be able to assess the whole research programme.

    It may be the case that you only feel confident in commenting on one aspect of the proposal, because of its multi- or interdisciplinary nature. If this is the case, please restrict your comments to the element(s) of the proposal within your expertise, and tell us what that is in Section 4. This would greatly assist the proposer and panel to place your comments in context.

    Collaboration

    The proposal you are considering may have cited contributions from collaborators (termed project partners).  You are asked to focus on whether the nature of the collaboration described is appropriate to the research work described.

    Staff Resources

    The 2002 Roberts Review, SET for Success, recommended increases in the levels of salaries for postdoctoral researchers, and in particular in shortage areas with a high market demand.  With additional funding subsequently made available, universities have been invited to seek appropriate costs, supported by full justification.  In recognition of the need to support higher PDRA salaries, you are asked to carefully consider, and be sympathetic towards, proposals requesting such resources.  Higher than normal salary requests are acceptable provided the case for support includes proper justification. 

    Linked proposals

    Where two or more proposals have been formally linked to form a single research project, you are requested to submit only a single review form covering the project as a whole.

    Equipment-rich proposals

    Referees are asked to take care when reviewing proposals which are particularly ‘equipment-rich’ (for example, for proposals of £250k or more in value, of which 50% or more is for equipment).  In such cases, the expectation would be that research work is outlined in fairly broad terms when compared to a standard proposal.  For example, if the equipment underpins a number of research projects, then – given the constraints on the length of the case for support – the level of detail that can be presented on each research area is limited.  Moreover, the normal assessment criteria will not necessarily apply: the research impact of the equipment proposal will be more important, for example, than the absolute quality of each potential project listed.  Equipment rich proposals should include sufficient additional resources (e.g. technical and experimental staff or equipment maintenance costs) to ensure effective use of the equipment, or an explanation of how such resources will be provided.

    Other non-standard proposals

    You may also be asked to review other non-standard proposals where you are asked to take into account the specific aims of the scheme, and where the review report form may differ from the standard referee form for responsive mode proposals.  Schemes falling into this category include First Grants, Networks, Platform grants, and Workshops.  Details of these schemes can be found in the ‘Research Funding’ section of the EPSRC website.  

    SECTION 3: You should feel free to comment on any additional aspects of the project that you believe to be important.  Please provide your comments here. If you are unable to fit all your comments into the space available, we would encourage you to use continuation sheets.

    Any comments that you would prefer the proposer not to see should be completed on a separate sheet of paper and clearly headed as “confidential comments”.  For electronic submissions any comments that you would prefer the proposer not to see should be included as an 'attachment' to the form and labelled with the grant reference and "confidential comments". Upload the attachment, including suitable information in the 'description of document box'. Please also tick the 'confidential' box on the attachments screen after you have uploaded the document. Note that only Acrobat (.pdf) and Word (.doc) files are currently supported for upload. 

    SECTION 4: We would encourage you to provide us with your area of expertise: this can greatly assist both the proposer and panel members in placing your comments in context. You need not be very specific about this, especially if you feel that providing the information may reveal your identity to the proposer. However, a few key words would be very helpful.   

    Web links in the proposal

    The proposal you are asked to review includes a case for support.  In some instances, the case for support may include a link to a web site containing information on the research proposed.  Referees are not required to consider this additional information when providing comments on a proposal.  If you do choose to look at this information, it is possible that your anonymity to the applicant will be compromised.  

    Data Protection Act 1998

    The information that you provide on the referees form will be used in the processing of all aspects of the relevant grant proposal. This will include recording on the in-house grants processing computer and management information systems, and in the preparation of material for applicants and for use by EPSRC peer review panels.  In addition information may be used in the generation and collation of output and performance indicators and other management statistics. It may also be used in policy and strategy studies to inform management in carrying out the business of Council and in improving the business processes. Any queries should be addressed to the EPSRC Data Protection Officer (tel: +44 (0) 1793 444 100). 

    Guidance for completing The Referees’ Assessment Form for Fellowships

    The notes below are intended to provide referees with specific guidance for the completion of the referees’ form. They should be read in conjunction with any other specific guidance supplied in connection with the particular programme or scheme.

    SECTION 1: Before proceeding with your assessment, we ask that you consider the following:

    Conflicts of Interest

    EPSRC have adopted a code of practice for all those who assist in the work of the Council which embraces the "Seven Principles of Public Life" drawn up by the Nolan Committee and endorsed by Parliament. An important aspect of this code is the avoidance of any conflicts between personal interests and the interests of the EPSRC. In the context of peer review of research proposals, a conflict of interest might arise, for example, if an assessor had a close working relationship, or personal connections, with any individual(s) in the department from which a proposal originates. Such interests may be indirect and relate to immediate family members or any other persons living in the same household as the assessor. The acid test is whether a member of the public, knowing the facts of the situation, might reasonably think the judgement could be influenced by the possibility of private or commercial gain.

    If you think that your involvement in assessing a particular research proposal might be perceived as a conflict of interest, you should decline the invitation to act as a referee. Please contact the office if you feel that you need further advice about this matter.

    Level of confidence in your ability to provide an assessment of the proposal

    If, for any reason, you feel that you are not able to confidently assess the proposal, please advise EPSRC. Given the importance of high quality referee reports to the peer review process, it is essential that you can speak with confidence with respect to your assessment of the proposal, justifying your comments in full. Perhaps because of the nature of the proposal, you may feel that you are only able to comment on some aspects of it (see below). For this reason, confidence boxes are provided against each section.

    Multi- or Interdisciplinary Proposals

    For guidance, the EPSRC considers interdisciplinary research can show three or more of the following six characteristics, amongst other attributes:

    • The novelty of the proposal lies in the combination of its parts not necessarily each individual part;

    • The research may be problem focussed;

    • The research applies the tools of one field to another in a new way;

    • The research may necessitate an investigator moving from their usual discipline of research;

    • It is unlikely that an individual referee will be able to assess the whole research programme.

    • It may be the case that you may only feel confident in commenting on one aspect of the proposal, because of its multi- or interdisciplinary nature. If this is the case, please restrict your comments to the element(s) of the proposal within your expertise, and tell us what that is in Section 4. This would greatly assist the proposer and panel in placing your comments in context.

    SECTION 2: A full justification for your assessment of the proposal should be included here. The prompts are provided as a reminder of those issues that are likely to be most significant in determining the overall merit of a proposal. However, the relative spacing devoted to each prompt should not constrain your response: please provide as full a response as you believe you are qualified to.

    SECTION 3: You should feel free to comment on any additional aspects of the project that you believe to be important. Please provide your comments here. If you are unable to fit all your comments into the space available, we would encourage you to use continuation sheets.

    SECTION 4: Any scientific, technical or other queries, which concern you, but could easily be addressed by the candidate before interview, should be raised here.

    SECTION 5: We would encourage you to provide us with your area of expertise: this can greatly assist both the proposer and panel members in placing your comments in context.

    Sections 6 & 7 are CONFIDENTIAL and will not be fed back to the candidate.

    SECTION 6: A full justification for your assessment of the candidate should be included here. The prompts are provided as a reminder of those issues that are likely to be most significant in determining the overall merit of the candidate. However, the relative spacing devoted to each prompt should not constrain your response: please provide as full a response as you believe you are qualified to.

    SECTION 7: You should feel free to provide any additional information about the candidate that you believe to be important. Please provide your comments here. If you are unable to fit all your comments into the space available, we would encourage you to use continuation sheets. 

    Data Protection Act 1998

    The information that you provide on the referees form will be used in the processing of all aspects of the relevant grant proposal. This will include recording on the in-house grants processing computer and management information systems, and in the preparation of material for applicants and for use by EPSRC peer review panels.

    In addition information may be used in the generation and collation of output and performance indicators and other management statistics. It may also be used in policy and strategy studies to inform management in carrying out the business of Council and in improving the business processes.

    Any queries should be addressed to the EPSRC Data Protection Officer (tel: +44 (0) 1793 444 100). 

    Guidance to referees reviewing EPSRC proposals for a Workshop or Summer School

    EPSRC funds workshops or schools to stimulate research or to train postgraduate students. Requests for complete or partial funding of the event are subject to peer review. Organisers can apply at any time in responsive mode. They are advised that the case for support should include:

    • The purpose of the school/workshop;

    • The programme/course content and likely speakers;

    • The relationship to any similar schools/workshops;

    • The numbers of attendees and target audience;

    • The cost, detailing funds from EPSRC and other sponsorship;

    • Plans for a user-based evaluation for the school/workshop.

    Peer review

    As an expert in this area, we would greatly appreciate your comments on the following issues:

    • Scientific quality and the appropriateness of the speakers; 

    • Relevance and impact and the relation to any other schools/workshops;

    • Any collaborative aspects and dissemination;

    • Cost-effectiveness and justification of the resources;

    • Management arrangements.

    The EPSRC aims to process applications within 12 weeks, but it may be necessary to put the proposal to a peer review panel, along with your completed review form.  As the decision to fund has to be made before the start date of the school or workshop for the grant to be awarded, we would be grateful if you could review this proposal before the deadline specified in the cover letter. If you are unable to do this, please contact EPSRC as soon as possible.

    SECTION 1: Before proceeding with your assessment, we ask that you consider the following:

    Conflicts of Interest

    EPSRC have adopted a code of practice for all those who assist in the work of the Council which embraces the “Seven Principles of Public Life” drawn up by the Nolan Committee and endorsed by Parliament.  An important aspect of this code is the avoidance of any conflicts between personal interests and the interests of the EPSRC.  In the context of peer review of research proposals, a conflict of interest might arise, for example, if an assessor had a close working relationship, or personal connections, with any individual(s) in the department from which a proposal originates.  Such interests may be indirect and relate to immediate family members or any other persons living in the same household as the assessor.  The acid test is whether a member of the public, knowing the facts of the situation, might reasonably think the judgement could be influenced by the possibility of private or commercial gain.

    If you think that your involvement in assessing a particular research proposal might be perceived as a conflict of interest, you should decline the invitation to act as a referee.  Please contact the office if you feel that you need further advice about this matter.

    Level of confidence in your ability to provide an assessment of the proposal

    If, for any reason, you feel that you are not able to confidently assess the proposal, please advise EPSRC. Given the importance of high quality referee reports to the peer review process, it is essential that you can speak with confidence with respect to your assessment of the proposal, justifying your comments in full. Perhaps because of the nature of the proposal, you may feel that you are only able to comment on some aspects of it.  For this reason, confidence boxes are provided.

    SECTION 2: A full justification for your assessment of the proposal should be included here.  The prompts are provided as a reminder of those issues that are likely to be most significant in determining the overall merit of a proposal. However, the relative spacing devoted to each prompt should not constrain your response: please provide as full a response as you believe you are qualified to.

    SECTION 3: You should feel free to comment on any additional aspects of the project that you believe to be important.  Please provide your comments here. If you are unable to fit all your comments into the space available, we would encourage you to use continuation sheets.

    Any comments that you would prefer the proposer not to see should be completed on a separate sheet of paper and clearly headed as “confidential comments”.  For electronic submissions any comments that you would prefer the propose not to see should be included as an 'attachment' to the form and labeled with the grant reference and "confidential comments". Upload the attachment, including suitable information in the 'description of document box'. Please also tick the 'confidential' box on the attachments screen after you have uploaded the document. Note that only Acrobat (.pdf) and Word (.doc) files are currently supported for upload. 

    SECTION 4: We would encourage you to provide us with your area of expertise: this can greatly assist both the proposer and panel members in placing your comments in context. You need not be very specific about this, especially if you feel that providing the information may reveal your identity to the proposer. However, a few key words would be very helpful.  

    Web links in the proposal

    The proposal you are asked to review includes a case for support.  In some instances, the case for support may include a link to a web site containing information on the research proposed.  Referees are not required to consider this additional information when providing comments on a proposal.  If you do choose to look at this information, it is possible that your anonymity to the applicant will be compromised.  

    Data Protection Act 1998

    The information that you provide on the referees form will be used in the processing of all aspects of the relevant grant proposal. This will include recording on the in-house grants processing computer and management information systems, and in the preparation of material for applicants and for use by EPSRC peer review panels.

    In addition information may be used in the generation and collation of output and performance indicators and other management statistics. It may also be used in policy and strategy studies to inform management in carrying out the business of Council and in improving the business processes.

    Any queries should be addressed to the EPSRC Data Protection Officer (tel: +44 (0) 1793 444 100). 

    Guidance to referees reviewing Basic Technology Research Proposals

    General Information

    The notes below are intended to provide referees with specific guidance for the completion of the referees’ report form.  They should be read in conjunction with the Basic Technology Research Programme Background Information .

    In making their assessment referees are asked to take a broad view, encompassing as far as possible the stated vision, and criteria for the call.

    In addition, it is important for referees to note that:

    • Basic Technology proposals will be different from those submitted to other Research Council Programmes;

    • Proposals may be larger, more ambitious, higher risk and more generic in nature.

    • Proposals should be considered independently of Research Council boundaries, with each being judged on its own merit and ability to realise the vision for Basic Technology.

    The referees’ report will be made available to the proposer.  The name of the referee will remain confidential and the proposer will not be able to identify the referee from the referee reference number.  Any comments that you would prefer the proposer not to see should be completed on a

    separate sheet of paper and clearly headed as “confidential comments”.

    Completing the Form

    SECTION 1: Before proceeding with your assessment, we ask that you consider the following:

    Conflicts of Interest

    The Research Councils have adopted a code of practice for all those who assist in the work of the Basic Technology Programme.  The code embraces the “Seven Principles of Public Life” drawn up by the Nolan Committee and endorsed by Parliament. In the context of peer review of research proposals and final report, a conflict of interest might arise, for example, if a referee has, or has had in the past, a close working relationship, financial or personal connections with any individual(s) in the academic department(s) or organisation (or any collaborating company or body) from which a proposal or Final Report originates. Such interests may be indirect and relate to immediate family members or any other persons living in the same household as the assessor. The acid test is whether a member of the public, knowing the facts of the situation, might reasonably think the judgement could be influenced by the potential conflict of interest.
     

    If you think that your involvement in assessing a particular research proposal might be perceived as a conflict of interest, you should decline the invitation to act as a referee as soon as possible. Please contact the office if you feel that you need further advice about this matter.

    Level of confidence in your ability to provide an assessment of the proposal

    If, for any reason, you feel that you are not able to confidently assess the proposal, please advise us. Given the importance of high quality referee reports to the peer review process, it is essential that you can speak with confidence with respect to your assessment of the proposal, justifying your comments in full. Perhaps because of the nature of the proposal, you may feel that you are only able to comment on some aspects of it (see below). For this reason, confidence boxes are provided against each section.

    Protection of Ideas and Scientific Misconduct

    The integrity of peer review is dependent on the selflessness of reviewers. All papers relating to the consideration of proposals and Final Reports must be treated as strictly confidential and seen for the purpose of review only. After assessment they should either be returned to the Office or shredded. Referees must not take advantage of any information obtained as a result of their role, and should refer any questions to the Office, and must not contact applicants direct.

    Progress in scientific and engineering research depends on honesty in the presentation of genuine results. The EPSRC, who manage Basic Technology on behalf of the Research Councils, takes scientific misconduct, including misrepresentation in research proposals, very seriously and would wish that any instances which are observed should be drawn to its attention as a matter of urgency. A Good Practice Guide on the EPSRC website gives further advice, and questions about this issue arising from the review of proposals or final reports should be raised with the Office.

    Equal Opportunities

    RCUK is committed to equal opportunities in all its activities. Reviewers should ensure that they avoid any bias in the assessment of proposals and final reports due to gender, disability, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or religious belief. Comments by the referees must not contravene this policy.  Defamatory or otherwise actionable comments should also be avoided.

    SECTION 2:

    A full justification for your assessment of the proposal should be included here.  The prompts are provided as a reminder of those issues that are likely to be most significant in determining the overall merit of a proposal. However, the relative spacing devoted to each prompt should not constrain your response: please provide as full a response as you believe you are qualified to.

    SECTION 3:

    You should feel free to comment on any additional aspects of the project that you believe to be important.  Please provide your comments here. If you are unable to fit all your comments into the space available, we would encourage you to use continuation sheets.

    SECTION 4:

    We would encourage you to provide us with your area of expertise: this can greatly assist both the proposer and panel members in placing your comments in context. You need not be very specific about this, especially if you feel that providing the information may reveal your identity to the proposer. However, a few key words would be very helpful.

    Data Protection Act 1998

    The information that you provide on the referees form will be used in the processing of all aspects of the relevant grant proposal. This will include recording on the in-house grants processing computer and management information systems, and in the preparation of material for applicants and for use by Research Councils peer review panels.

    In addition information may be used in the generation and collation of output and performance indicators and other management statistics. It may also be used in policy and strategy studies to inform management in carrying out the business of the Research Councils and in improving their business processes.

    Any queries should be addressed to any of the Research Councils Data Protection Officers.

     

    Basic Technology Research Programme:  Background Information

    Vision for the Programme

    The Basic Technology Research Programme will contribute to the development of a generic technology base that can be adapted to a diverse range of scientific research problems and challenges spanning the interests of all the research councils.

    To explain: the programme seeks to support a different type of project than those sponsored through any other existing funding source by only selecting the most promising ideas across the range of basic technologies and also to help people to think innovatively and work together across traditional research boundaries.  The distinctive features of the Programme are to:

    • Encompass the communities of all UK Research Councils.
    • Provide a focus for fundamental research on basic enabling technologies as distinct from basic science.
    • Offer an opportunity to make genuine leaps in technology to change the way that science and engineering research is undertaken in the future.
    • Promote multidisciplinary work and build capacity through establishing new teams and developing and sharing new skills and knowledge.

    The Research Councils’ Basic Technology Research Programme is concerned with building UK capability in technology research to underpin the next generation of tools, techniques and processes that will have a significant impact across science and will form the basis of the industries of the future.  Basic technology research is fundamental, operating without Research Council constraint (in terms of scope, remit or academic discipline); it asks people to think beyond their own discipline with a focus on innovation.

    Only fundamental research projects will be supported through this Programme - it is not intended to support applied research solving individual technology problems.  The Programme will support technology research of potentially vast application that will significantly change how we do research, manufacturing, medicine etc in the future. 

    Background

    Although there are dangers in utilising general pictures of research development, a distinction can nonetheless be made between those activities that provide a platform for later application (but where this application has not yet been identified) and those activities where every resource is brought to bear in ensuring that a specific identified applications target can be reached.  This distinction between "divergent" activity and "convergent" activity is useful, not least in indicating the most promising sector for the application of public research funds.  It is by ensuring that the platform of the necessary research skills is in place that Government support can best ensure the future research health of the nation.

    The divergent activities comprise two main categories, that of acquired understanding (basic science) and that of acquired capability (basic technology).  While the former has been a long recognised aspect of the research endeavour, the latter has been somewhat overlooked and, indeed, confused by the use of the term "applied science" (which already introduces the convergent dimension).  Basic technology can, in summary, be seen as a crucial element in the skills set required for research and innovation.  It simply means that the researcher has the ability to operate within the research space where understanding has been or is being acquired.

    The Research Challenge for the Programme

    The Programme aims to support a different type of project than those sponsored through existing Research Council Programmes.  It is seeking to encourage consortia and to develop a new technology community that is not constrained by Research Council remit or academic discipline. It will develop new technologies and bring existing technologies together in new ways in order to address challenges that have common ownership across the research community.  These technologies will ensure the UK science and engineering base maintains its position in leading edge research.

    The challenge for the Programme is to innovate; to build capacity through establishing new teams and developing and sharing new skills and knowledge; to make leaps in technology unfeasible through existing funding models for applied science; to develop new instruments, systems, processes and approaches to aid observation measurement, optimisation and control and to devise new methods for the fabrication, embodiment, integration and implementation of technologies.

     

    GUIDANCE NOTES FOR COMPLETING FELLOWSHIP PROPOSALS

     

     

    General Guidance

    Project Details

    Applicant

    Applicant Commitments

    Years of Post-Doctoral Experience

    Higher Degree Registration

    Related Proposals

    Collaboration Details

    Resource Summary

    Objectives

    Summary

    Beneficiaries

    Choice of Host Institution

    Head of Department/ Institutional Statement

    Applicant Salary

    Other Support

    Resources (NERC and EPSRC Research Chair only)

    Travel and Subsistence (NERC and EPSRC Research Chair only)

    Consumables (EPSRC Research Chair only)

    Exceptional Items (EPSRC Research Chair only)

    Equipment (EPSRC Research Chair only)

    Large Capital (EPSRC Research Chair only)

    Services (EPSRC Research Chair only)

    Facilities (NERC only)

    Classifications

    Referees

    Attachments

    Declaration

    General Guidance

    Data Protection Act 1998

    The Council will use information provided on the proposal form in the processing of the proposal, any fellowship awarded and subsequent payments, including maintenance and review processes.  This includes:

    • registration of proposals
    • operation of Council fellowship processing and management information systems
    • the acquisition of UK and possibly international referee comments on the proposal
    • the preparation of material for use by peer review panels
    • statistical analysis to inform the evaluation of the quality of the research undertaken and to study demographic trends
    To meet the Council’s public accountability and information dissemination obligations, details of funded fellowships may also be made publicly available on the Council’s external website and other publicly available databases, and in reports and/or paper documents.

    Contact the relevant Council’s Data Protection Officer for further information

    •  EPSRC: +44 (0) 1793 444 100

    • NERC:  +44 (0) 1793 411 766

    • PPARC: +44 (0) 1793 442 034

     

    General Fellowship Information and Guidance

     

    Anyone involved in the preparation and submission of a proposal should familiarise themselves with the Council’s fellowship regulations before completing a proposal.  These are detailed in the EPSRC Funding Guide 2004, the NERC Fellowships Handbook or the PPARC Fellowships Handbook.

     

    Accompanying Documentation

     

    Please refer to individual Council Fellowship guidance or handbooks for advice on the content of the accompanying documentation.  One of the PDF files attached to the proposal form must be classified as type Case for Support. A proposal without a Case for Support will not be accepted.  The Case for Support should be a self-contained description of the proposed research. The table describes the attachments that should be included with each Fellowship.

     

     

     

    EPSRC

    NERC

    PPARC

    Advanced Research Fellowship

    Case for Support (only required if not applying for an associated research grant)

    CV

    List of publications

     

     

    Senior Research Fellowship

    Case for Support (only required if not applying for an associated research grant)

    CV

    List of publications

     

     

    Senior Media Fellowship

    Case for Support

    CV

     

     

    Research Chair

    Case for Support

     

     

     

    Post Doctoral Fellowship

     

    Case for Support

    CV

    List of publications

    Collaboration Details (optional: only necessary if section on collaboration details has an entry)

    Case for Support

    CV

    List of publications

    Advanced Fellowship

     

    Case for Support

    CV

    List of publications

    Collaboration Details (optional: only necessary if section on collaboration details has an entry)

    Case for Support

    CV

    List of publications

    Senior Fellowship

     

    Case for Support

    CV

    List of Publications

    Collaboration Details (optional: only necessary if section on collaboration details has an entry)

    Case for Support

    CV

    List of publications

     

     

    Additional documents files may also be attached (as separate attachments and classified as type Other). If you wish to send a covering letter, include the letter as an attachment of type Other.  Use the Other attachment type to refer to any hard copy documents you intend to post to the Council as part of the proposal, should such hard copy documents be otherwise unavoidable

    Project Details

    Organisation is the research organisation where the grant or fellowship would be held.  Only those organisations that have registered to submit proposals through Je-S are available for selection. If the required organisation does not appear in the list, please consult that organisation's research grant administration department regarding plans for Je-S registration. The organisation list is maintained by the Je-S Helpdesk.

    If an organisation appears in the list, it does not necessarily mean that it is eligible to apply for research grants from the Council. Generally, research grants and fellowships are open to UK Universities and similar organisations but eligibility can vary depending on the scheme. Check the relevant funding booklet for further details and contacts concerning eligibility.

    The department list for the organisation is centrally maintained. If the required department is not listed or is named incorrectly, consult the organisation's research grant administration department, who should then contact the Je-S Helpdesk.

    Use Your Reference to help distinguish easily between proposals in users' Current Documents lists. The reference is intended to be a unique identifier for the proposal and is unrelated to the reference that the organisation would be asked to provide if a grant were awarded.  If an organisation does not have a system for referencing grant proposals, users should create their own.

    All three fields must be completed

    Title of Proposed Work

    The title should be as informative as possible, capturing the essence of the research.

    It should not exceed 150 characters and must be completed.

    Only standard ASCII characters should be used. Avoid using specialist characters and symbols (eg. mathematical symbols, accents) because these may not transfer successfully to other computer systems

    Type of Fellowship

    Appropriate entries from the list of Schemes and list of Calls define the type of Fellowship proposal.

    Further information about the various types of Fellowship supported by each Council may be found in the relevant Council's funding booklet.

    Start Date And Duration

    • the proposed start date and duration must be entered
    • ensure that the proposed start date is realistic taking account of the period required by the Council to process the proposal (as published by the Council).
    • enter the proposed duration of the Fellowship in months , checking (with the relevant Council's funding booklet or handbook) that it complies with the terms of the selected type of proposal.

    Applicant: Current Details

    See Searching for Data for guidance on adding an applicant.

    The applicant should be the individual who is applying for the Fellowship. He/she will be the Council's main contact for the proposal.

    All applicants must meet the Council's eligibility requirements for the Fellowship scheme to which they are applying - check the relevant Council's funding policy booklet for further details and contacts concerning eligibility.

    Other requirements are that:

    • only registered Je-S users may be selected from the searchable list (see Searching for Data for guidance on including non-registered people)

    • the applicant must also be the Owner of the document

    • no applicant should have an overdue final report on a research grant previously awarded by the Council. If an overdue report exists, the Council will not consider further proposals from the individual.

    Note that some fields will be automatically filled in once the applicant has been selected.

    Applicant Commitments

    For all EPSRC Fellowships and PPARC Senior Fellowships, the applicant is required to describe other main duties (such as teaching and administration) that would be relieved from the applicant if a Fellowship were to be awarded. The details should be expressed as average hours per week.

    Years of Postdoctoral Experience

    Applicants to the EPSRC Advanced Research or PPARC Postdoctoral or Advanced schemes must have or expect to have a PhD.  Applicants must state the number of years’ postdoctoral experience they would have by the time of taking up a fellowship. Please refer to the individual Council’s guidance notes for eligibility criteria.

    Higher Degree Registration

    PPARC-specific guidance

    Applicants to the Postdoctoral scheme must state the date of their PhD submission or its expected date if they have not submitted by the time of making the application.

    Related Proposals (except PPARC)

    Previous proposals: if the proposal is related to one or more proposals previously submitted to the Council, select the appropriate relationship from the list and enter the Council's reference number(s).

     optional research grants- EPSRC-specific

    Applicants to the Senior Research and Advanced Fellowship schemes may apply for an optional research grant. If this is case, applicants must do so by completing and submitting an  EPSRC research  proposal using the Je-S system.  When completing the accompanying research proposal you must select the appropriate call and the research  proposal must be  the lead proposal. See guidance below

    Within the fellowship proposal

    1. Select optional research grant
    2. Enter the common Je-S reference used by both constituent Fellowship and Research Grant proposals. The common Je-S reference must be obtained by from the accompanying proposal form on the Je-S system. See below on how to do this.

    To obtain the common Je-S reference

    within the standard EPSRC research proposal form:

    1. Select edit related proposals
    2. Select edit joint proposals
    3. Select yes to “is this a joint proposal” and click next
    4. Select yes to “are you the lead RO” and click next
    5. Select generate reference and make a note of the reference number, this is the number you require when preparing your accompanying fellowship application
    6. Enter the number of proposals in the joint project, this should be 2
    7. confirm the information is correct by selecting finish, if it is not then select previous to amend

    Collaboration Details (NERC-specific guidance only)

    Applicants should provide details of new or existing collaborations which their fellowship is dependent upon. For each collaborator, a statement as to their willingness to be involved should be submitted with the application as an attachment.

    Summary of Resources Required For Project

    This part of the form contains data which has been automatically generated from entries made in other sections of the form or from selection of a specific scheme.

    NERC-specific guidance

    Postdoctoral Fellowships receive a recurrent grant of £8,500 p.a. and a research support grant of £1,000 per annum.

    Advanced and Senior Fellowships receive a recurrent grant of £10,000 p.a. and a research support grant of £1,000 per annum

    PPARC-specific guidance

    Postdoctoral Fellows will receive travel and subsistence funding of £1.5k per annum.  Advanced fellows will receive travel and subsistence funding of £2.0k per annum.

    Postdoctoral Fellows will receive equipment funding of £3.0k.  Advanced fellows will receive equipment funding of £5.0k.

    Postdoctoral Fellows will receive a Research Training Support Grant of £1.0k per annum.

    Objectives

    The objectives of the proposed project should be listed in order of priority and should be those that the applicant would wish the Council to use as the basis for evaluation of work upon completion of any grant awarded.

    This field must be completed using:
    • no more than 4000 characters.
    • only standard ASCII characters should be used.
    • no specialist characters and symbols (eg. mathematical symbols, accents) because these may not transfer successfully to other computer systems.

    Summary

    The Council has a responsibility to promote the public awareness and understanding of its research areas. The purpose of the Summary is to help publicise the Council's research programme to:

    • opinion-formers and policy makers.
    • the general public.
    • the wider research community.

    The summary should be written (in no more than 4000 characters) using user-friendly language which can be clearly understood by those with no prior knowledge of the subject, such as an interested 14-year old.

    The summary may cover, for example:

    • the principal subject of the research
    • the key aims
    • where and how the research would be undertaken
    • who else would be involved
    • the total cost (not relevant to PPARC or NERC)

    In the event that a Fellowship is awarded this summary may be used for dissemination to the general public, or for press releases, and may be published on the Council's Web site and other publicly available sites.

    This field must be completed using:
    • no more than 4000 characters.
    • only standard ASCII characters should be used.
    • no specialist characters and symbols (eg. mathematical symbols, accents) because these may not transfer successfully to other computer systems.

    EPSRC-specific guidance

    For Senior Media Fellowships the Summary should capture in broad terms the applicant’s proposals for developing their role as a media “explainer” of the science or engineering topics included and make clear what forms of activity are planned.

    Beneficiaries

    EPSRC and NERC-specific guidance only

    Beneficiaries are those who are likely to be interested in or to benefit from the proposed research.

    List any beneficiaries from the research and give details of how the results of the proposed research would be disseminated. Please state whether the research is likely to lead to patentable or otherwise commercially exploitable results. Wherever possible, the beneficiaries should consist of a wider group than that of the investigators' immediate professional circle carrying out similar research. Specific beneficiaries might be:

    • researchers in other disciplines
    • academic organisation
    • companies, public sector bodies and others who may use the results to their advantage
    • policy makers
    This field must be completed using:
    • no more than 4000 characters.
    • only standard ASCII characters should be used.
    • no specialist characters and symbols (eg. mathematical symbols, accents) because these may not transfer successfully to other computer systems.

    Choice of Host Institution

    NERC and PPARC-specific guidance only

    Applicants for Postdoctoral or Advanced Fellowships must justify their choice of proposed host institution in a clear statement not exceeding 300 characters.

    This field must be completed using:
    • no more than 300 characters.
    • only standard ASCII characters should be used.
    • no specialist characters and symbols (eg. mathematical symbols, accents) because these may not transfer successfully to other computer systems.

    Head of Department Statement

    specific guidance for

    • EPSRC Advanced Research Fellowship

    • All NERC Fellowships

    • PPARC Post Doctoral and Advanced Fellowships)

    The head of department at the host institution or, alternatively, another member of the department must complete a statement in support of the application; The statement should:

    • Confirm that the applicant would be accepted into the department for the purpose of undertaking the proposed research
    • Explain how the proposed research would fit in with the department’s wider research programme

      additional guidance for EPSRC Advanced Research only

    • Comment on the suitability of the candidate and their employment potential

    • Include a statement as to the commitment of the research organisation

      additional guidance for NERC

    • If the applicant's starting salary is to exceed the appropriate age-related scale point, justification for this must be given by the head of department.

    This field must be completed using:
    • no more than 10,000 characters.
    • only standard ASCII characters should be used.
    • no specialist characters and symbols (eg. mathematical symbols, accents) because these may not transfer successfully to other computer systems.

    Support Costs (EPSRC Senior Media only)

    Support costs are the total additional costs required to carry out the fellowship activities.

    Applicant Salary

    Applicants should refer to individual guidance notes/ handbooks for advice on what is eligible.

    Applicants for Senior Research Fellowships should enter the salary costs of their temporary replacement plus an amount for their own personal travel and subsistence.  These two sums must not exceed £38k per annum.

    For  EPSRC Senior Media Fellowships applicants should enter the total salary cost required for the duration of the fellowship. Salary costs should be calculated based on the percentage of the time the candidate will be spending on the Fellowship.

    For those Fellowships (NERC and EPSRC) that use the staff costs calculator, guidance on its operation is given below.

     

    Staff costs fall into two categories (an organisation's central administration department should be able to advise on the appropriate category to use):

    • those funded on the basis of the JNCHES (Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff - formerly UCEA) payscales - applied in line with the algorithm used by Council. This algorithm uses scales with or without London Allowance, and incorporating a standard addition for National Insurance and superannuation.  It increments the salary by one step on the specified annual increment date unless the top of the scale has been reached;

    A staff costs calculator is provided by Je-S. To use this:

    • ensure that the JNCHES Scale box is checked

      enter the name of the proposed postholder - this will automatically be filled in with the applicant's name. For EPSRC research chair where this is not known use an identifier eg. Post 1, Unnamed 2 etc. You may also press Select to search through registered Je-S users

    • press Next
    • select appropriate values for Start Date, Duration, Full Time Percentage%, London Weight/Grade, Spine Pt, Increment Date, Total Other Allowances and then press Calculate.

      NERC-Specific Guidance Include details of the payroll costs requested from the Council for the fellowship applicant only.  The level of reimbursement will be based on the JNCHES scale. The requested starting salary for the applicant should be determined taking into account the Fellow’s age when taking up the appointment and previous salary level. This will normally be up to a maximum of the Age 30 point for Postdoctoral Fellows and the Age 40 point for Advanced Fellows. The Head of Department’s statement should include justification for a starting salary to exceed the appropriate age-related scale point.

    • The calculator will derive the other values and the total cost of the post. Press OK if you are happy with the calculation.  Otherwise, press Cancel.
    • those funded on the basis of other salary scales or JNCHES scales applied in a different way to that specified in the Research Council algorithm (eg. different superannuation addition). 

    • ensure the JNCHES Scale box is unchecked

    • enter the name of the proposed postholder - this will automatically be filled in with the applicant's name. For EPSRC research chair where this is not known use an identifier eg. Post 1, Unnamed 2 etc. You may also press Select to search through registered Je-S users

    • press Next

    • complete all fields for each post requested.

    • press OK

    In both cases:

    • Grade, starting spine point, increment date - these should be in accordance with the normal practice of the organisation where the proposed staff would be employed.

    • Effective date of salary scale - used to identify the version of scales used.  This will be automatically populated for JNCHES posts (as today's date)

    • Start date: the date on which the postholder would begin work on the project.

    • Period on project and % of Full Time - these values are required to derive the staff effort on the project.

    For example:

    For an individual working:

    Period on Project (months)

    % of Full Time

    Half-time throughout a three-year project

    36

    50%

    Full-time for 18 months on a three-year project

    18

    100%

    1 day per week for 12 months on a two-year project

    12

    20%
    • Total cost on grant: the total cost requested from the Council for each post

    • For non-JNCHES posts, enter the starting annual amounts for London Allowances and Superannuation/NI

     

    Resources NERC and EPSRC only

    All non-staff resource headings are accessible from this page.

    resources that can be applied for are:

    NERC

    Travel and Subsistence

    Facilities

    EPSRC Research chair only

    Travel and Subsistence  

    please refer to the guidance for standard proposals for the following resource headings:

    Consumables

    Exceptional Items

    Equipment

    Large capital

    Services

    Travel and Subsistence (NERC and EPSRC Research Chair only)

    A proposal may include funds for travel and subsistence (Overseas only for NERC) for use by applicants where these are required by the nature of the work.

    • All journeys should be costed by the most suitable and economical means and should be at current prices with no allowance for inflation

    • Identify the purpose and destination for each journey for which funds are sought

    • All journeys should be fully justified in the Case for Support

    • Subsistence rates, both UK and overseas, should be those applicable within the host organisation for staff travel and subsistence

    • Where there are multiple journeys to the same destination for the same purpose please annotate as eg. London - Paris x 2

    • Costs for attendance at conferences may be included (Not for NERC) , where such attendance will be of direct benefit to the research. Conferences should, as far as possible, be individually identified in the proposal.

    Other Support (except PPARC Senior Fellowship)

    Enter details of any support sought or received from any other source for this or related research in the past three years.

    Complete each field for each entry. If the decision date is unknown date, check the not known box

    PPARC-specific guidance

    Applicants for Postdoctoral or Advanced Fellowships must provide details of any other awards they will receive or expect to receive during the tenure of a fellowship.

     

    Classification of Fellowship Proposal (not EPSRC)

    NERC - Specific Guidance

    Applicants should specify percentages for Science Area, Secondary Classification, Science Topic and ENRI (Environmental and Natural Resource Issues). These must all total 100% (except secondary classification).

    PPARC-Specific Guidance

    Applicants should tick one box only for the “overall summary” classification.

    Classifications totalling 100% are required for both “scientific area” and “Type of Activity”.

    Nominated Referees

    Provide details of referees whom the Council may approach for assessment of the research proposal.

    Nominated referees should be experts in the research field and/or be able to provide an expert view on the value and benefits to users of the research proposal.

    Full contact details must be given for each referee, including one of telephone or e-mail (the Councils prefer to correspond by e-mail whenever possible).

    NOTE:

    If the person you require is not in the searchable list, use the Add New Person button - found at the bottom of the search window.

    specific guidance

    EPSRC

    Three referees must be nominated, and they should not be from the same organisation as the applicant or the host organisation.

    NERC

    Three referees must be nominated, and they should not be from the same organisation as the applicant or the host organisation. An optional fourth referee may also be nominated.

    PPARC-specific guidance

    Applicants for Postdoctoral or Advanced Fellowships must provide two references in support of their application.  One, and only one, of the two references must be from the host institution.

    Applicants for a Senior Research Fellowship must provide two references in support of their application.  Neither reference may be from the host institution.

    References should be submitted along with the application by the 15th October closing date.

     

    Declaration

    • In submitting a fellowship proposal to the Research Councils the Administrative Authority of a Research Organisation is confirming that:
    • They have read and understood the requirements of the Research Council to which they are applying
    • If awarded the grant they will accept the terms and conditions of the awarding Research Council
    • They have not entered into any obligations which may conflict with the Research Councils terms and conditions
    • They have verified the identity of the applicant

    Some fellowships require a Head of Department/Institutional Statement, we will assume that this has been filled in by the appropriate person and it is the Research Organisations responsibility to ensure this is the case,.

    Researcher/Student Details Guidance Notes

    Training Grant Data Protection  for Students and Supervisors

    The terms and conditions of EPSRC’s and MRC's training grants place a responsibility on universities to provide information about students and their projects.  The Research Councils will use information provided about students and supervisors for monitoring purposes and policy studies in relation to the Research Councils’ involvement in postgraduate training.  This may include:

    1. Statistical analyses in relation to the evaluation of research and the study of trends.
    2. Policy and strategy studies.


    Information may also be used to contact Research Council-funded students.

    To meet the Research Councils' obligations for public accountability and the dissemination of information, details of training grants may also be made available on the Research Councils' web sites and other publicly available databases, and in reports, documents and mailing lists.

    The following information about training grants and EPSRC-funded students may routinely be made publicly available:

    Information may be retained, after completion of the PhD, for policy studies involving analyses of trends in postgraduate training and reporting on these to government bodies such as OST.  Students should always have been informed that the university is passing personal details on to EPSRC and MRC for the above purposes.

    Information may be retained, after completion of the PhD, for policy studies involving analyses of trends in postgraduate training and reporting on these to government bodies such as OST.  Students should always have been informed that the university is passing personal details on to EPSRC for the above purposes.

     

    Training Grant General Information

    Doctoral Training Grants (DTGs) provide funding for the training of research students, leading to the award of a recognised qualification, usually a PhD.  Each DTG provides the finance associated with each cohort of students starting their doctoral training programmes, usually from October onwards.  The concurrent DTGs make up the doctoral training account (DTA).  A parallel scheme of Collaborative Training Accounts (CTAs) has also been established by EPSRC from 2004, to support those studentships which have formal linkages with industry, commerce and other organisations providing external sponsorship.

    The Training Grant model is also used for other categories of studentship, and student data for these can also be entered using this system.  ‘DTG’ and ‘DTA’ can therefore be treated somewhat as generic terms in this guidance.

    Notes on schemes

    Scheme is the type of studentship which may also be the type of training grant from which funds are to be drawn.  Use the drop down to select from the options available. The schemes available for selection include:

    Standard Research: It is expected that the majority of the students funded through doctoral training grants will fall under this scheme, including those where there is a project partner, such as a sponsoring company. 

     

    Analytical science: the funds for the student were agreed through the call for analytical science projects and delivered through the doctoral training grant. 

     

    Mathematical Sciences CASE: the funds for the student were agreed through a call for case projects in mathematical sciences and delivered through the doctoral training grant. 

     

    Industrial CASE: where student funding has been placed by a company and is delivered through an Industrial CASE Training Grant or Collaborative Training Grant. 

     

    Engineering Doctorate: intensive taught coursework and a doctoral level project that is usually undertaken in the sponsoring company. The EngD operates at specified  centres (16 in FY 2004/05) and funds are delivered through Collaborative Training Grants.

    CNA: The funds for these students are agreed through the approval route for CASE for New Academics and delivered through doctoral training grants (if agreed before end June 2004) or collaborative training grants (when agreed after June 2004).  Funds for these may be approved at any time.

     

    International Doctoral Scholarships: The funds for these students are delivered through an International Doctoral Scholarships grant.  Projects must be associated with a Portfolio Partnership or Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration and student eligibility is open, by analogy with project studentships. Information can be found at:

     

    Dorothy Hodgkin Postgraduate Awards (DHPA): The funds for these students are delivered through a Dorothy Hodgkin Postgraduate Award (DHPA) grant. These provide a way to fund the very best student candidates from a specified list of developing countries.

     

    Life Science Interface Doctoral Training Centre: the funds for these students are delivered through a Life Sciences Interface Doctoral Training Centre (LSI-DTC) grant.

     

    MRC Research Studentship:  These students are funded by the University's Doctoral Training Grant and the studentship is administered by the University.  The DTG can be used to fund PhD, Masters and collaborative (industrial link but with an academic lead) students.

     

    MRC Unit Studentship:  These studentships are based at MRC establishments and can be used to fund PhD, Masters and collaborative (industrial link but with an academic lead) students.

     

    Guidance on Completing Student and Project Details

    Submission Route and DTA pools

    The organisation can set up a pool of people who are able to add student records. When a record is completed it is submitted to a submitter pool. The members of the submitter pool are responsible for then submitting these to the Research Council.

    The person responsible for setting up the pools is known as the RO Master ID

    If you do not see a document type of  Student / Researcher details available to you, you will need to contact the staff within your organisation who have access to the RO Master ID. 

    See also the general guidance on setting up a pool

    Creating a document

    When a new student is starting, they are unlikely to be recorded in research council systems.  The details should be initiated using “add new student”. Once a record has been added, the document menu will become available.

    The screen for project partners will apply where there is sponsorship for the student from a company, charity or other organisation.  The screen for termination details will apply only if the student terminates their studies prematurely (for whatever reason).

    If a student started in the previous academic year or earlier, a copy of the student's details will be provided in “editable” form each Autumn.  The details should be amended where necessary (such as recording any change to stipend level, new collaboration, or premature termination of studies). Once updated, the record should be submitted, as for new records.

    To create a new student record:

    Click on Add New Student Document

    Select the Council, Scheme as appropriate and enter student registration date using the drop down menus.  You may also record your organisation’s reference for the student, if wished.

    Click on Select Person and use the search to ensure the student’s details are not already held. 

    Enter the student’s details.  A full address may be entered.  At minimum this must include a first line, town or city and country.  If the country is UK, then a postcode is also required. If a student has more than one email address, the primary one (in most use) should be given.

    Select Save and the details will be saved and you will be returned to the Add New Person screen. 

    Select Add and the document menu for student information becomes available. Use the document menu to work through the information required for each student.

     

    Notes on adding a new student document

    Student Registration Date is the date on which the student started their doctoral studies. 

    Students may start in advance of the start date for the training grant, particularly if they have undertaken studies from the start of the summer.  If this period is to be funded from the DTG (which is acceptable under the grant conditions if the intent is for doctoral studies from the outset) the date the student first started their studies should be recorded.

    Students may also start to receive DTG funding part way through their research, provided the funding meets the grant conditions.  Again, the start date should reflect the date on which the student started their studies, rather than when DTG funds began to be used. Funding dates may be entered using the screen for Research Organisations

    In most cases it is expected that students will be new to the Research Council data base. To add a new person to the database, you will need to go via Select Person.  The information needed includes:

    Student's name (surname and up to three forenames)

    You may also enter a ‘requested name’  to clarify which name the student wishes to be used in correspondence.

    Student’s Address

    The address should be the address the student gives for their general correspondence. This will normally be the home address whilst studying.  A full address may be entered.  At minimum this must include a first line, town or city and country.  If the country is UK, then a postcode is also required. Note that commas should be omitted from the address.

    An email address will be useful in contacting students about EPSRC-funded courses or events and should be included as mandatory in contact details.  If a student has more than one email address, the primary one (in most use) should be given.
     

    Edit Personal Details

    Date of birth is required and this screen may also be used to enter requested name, disability details (if relevant) and ethnic origin. Until the record has been submitted, it may also be used to edit the student’s name.

    Once the details have been entered, use Save to retain the details and return to the document menu. Cancel returns to the document menu without saving any changes made since the last save.
     

    Edit Contact Details

     

    The postal and email addresses the student wishes used for correspondence are required. Contact details may also be used to edit address information, until the record has been submitted.

    Once the details have been entered, use Save to retain the details and return to the document menu. Cancel returns to the document menu without saving any changes made since the last save.

    Notes on contact details

    Correspondence from EPSRC and MRC is likely to be about funded courses such as those run by the UKGRAD programme or, possibly, asking for views about funded postgraduate training. Students may also be invited to events or conferences that EPSRC or MRC funds. It may be that a student has, for example, both a personal and departmental email address.  In these instances, the student should be asked where they would like any emails sent.  An address in the format “email.address@university.ac.uk or joe.bloggs@yahoo.co.uk “is not helpful.
     

    Edit Degrees and Relevant Experience

     

    Use the drop down menus to enter degree type and the year it was awarded.  This is required information.

    Click on Select Organisation to search for the higher education institution.

    Once the details have been entered, use Save to retain the details and return to the document menu. Cancel returns to the document menu without saving any changes made since the last save.

     

    Notes on degrees and relevant experience

    Students must be able to demonstrate a capability to undertake and benefit from research training through to completion, to the standard necessary to qualify for a PhD.  This normally requires an upper second class honours degree, or a combination of qualifications and/or experience equivalent to that level.  The University may use its discretion in making decisions on the suitability of individual candidates for research training. 

    Relevant experience is research or research-related experience of relevance to the student’s suitability to undertake the project. Similarly, where students have more than one degree, the information that was used to help determine the suitability of the student for their doctoral studies should be entered. 
     

    Edit Research Training Dates

     

    Use the drop down menus to select the date on which the student started their studies.  This should normally be the date on which they registered for the higher degree. The funding end date is when the funding will cease (this has traditionally  been three years after the start date but different patterns of support can be accommodated – e.g. EPSRC four year Eng Doc). The system will generate a date by which the thesis is due to have been submitted. This may be amended (using the drop down menus) if required.

    Once the details have been entered, use Save to retain the details and return to the document menu. Cancel returns to the document menu without saving any changes made since the last save.

    Notes on research training dates

    It may be that DTA funding is used part way through a student’s studies. The start date should still show when the student started, rather then when DTA funds began to be used. From 2004, it is expected that the average funded period will increase to 3.5 years.  This may be through a mix of three and four year projects or other agreed periods in this range.

    The submission due date is calculated as end date plus one year.  Amendment may be required if the student is part-time and a pro-rata period is given (e.g. if the funded period is seven years half-time plus two to write up). The proportion of full time is recorded using Funding Details from the document menu.
     

    Edit Termination Details

     

    This screen will be required if the student terminates their studies prematurely (i.e. before the planned end of the funded period). If studies have been terminated early, select a reason from the drop down menu.  These are intended as broad categories:

    Gone to Employment

    Personal , including illness

    Student deceased

    Suitability (termination by university)

    Other and not known

    Edit Funding details

     

    Enter the overall funding arrangements for the student.  At minimum this must include the percentage of full time (default is 100%), annual stipend paid, annual fees paid and percentage of the stipend that is drawn from the doctoral training account.

    Notes on funding details

    Students may be full or part time.  It is expected that the period of study will reflect the percentage of time spent pursuing doctoral studies e.g. if a typical duration (full-time) is three years, a half-time student might expect support for up to six years.

    Part-time arrangements may be particularly suitable for those returning from a career break or who have domestic responsibilities that preclude full-time training.  A minimum of half time studies (and therefore maximum half-time employment) is suggested.

    From 2004, the stipend should be the amount paid to the student during the current academic year.  The student details will be made available for editing, each following autumn, for any update.

    The percentage of funds from the DTA may include funds from more than one doctoral training grant. If a student is eligible for stipend, at least half the minimum stipend (in aggregate over the period of the award) must be from DTA. The percentage recorded should show the aggregate over the funded period of study.

    Edit Project details

    A project title and project abstract are required.  Text may be pasted from documents or emails.  There is a character limit of 150 on the title and 4,000 on the abstract.

    Edit  Research Organisation(s)

    The university and department where the student is registered must be recorded, along with at least one supervisor and at least one DTG. 

    The supervisor must be at a research organisation and training grants are issued only to research organisations.  So the first step is to record the research organisation and then the supervisor(s) and grant(s) as relevant.  An extreme case would be where a student was registered at one university, had supervision from a second university and was funded from a training grant to a third university.  In such a case, all three organisations would need to be recorded and supervisor(s) and training grant(s) entered as relevant against each.

    In most cases, it is expected that there will be one research organisation, that this will be where the student is registered, where the supervisor(s) work and also where the funds are from.

    Click on Add New Research Organisation.  On the next screen, click on Select Organisation to search for the relevant organisation and select from the available list.  Click on Select Department to select from the departments at the research organisation.

    Note that to see the options for adding supervisor(s) and grant(s) you will need to click on Add New Research Organisation (even if the research organisation part of this screen has been completed).

    There is a tick box for recording whether the student is registered for their higher degree at this research organisation. The student must be registered at one of the research organisations.

    Use the drop down boxes to record the date when the student started at this organisation (default is the student’s start date) and their end date (default is the funding end date).

    Click on Add Supervisor to search for and select from a list of staff at the research organisation.

    Click on Add New Grant to record the grant from which the student is funded.  You may add more than one training grant. Use the funding start date and funding end date to allocate funding to each training grant.

    Notes on Research Organisations

    If the organisation at which the student is registered is not listed then contact the Je-S Helpdesk.

    If the supervisor is not listed against the relevant research organisation then contact the Je-S helpdesk.

    The organisation start and end dates are for recording when the student started at this research organisation and department and when their funded period of study within the department comes to an end.  If a student transfers to a different department or university, an amendment should be made to a copy of the record which will be available for editing each autumn.  Use the same method, as given above, to record another  research organisation and amend the organisation start and end dates accordingly.

    If one of the student’s supervisors is at a different research organisation, you will have to add the research organisation before being able to select the supervisor.

    Similarly, if the funds for the student are from a training grant to a different university, then the university must be added as an research organisation before the training grant can be recorded.

    Edit Project Partner Organisation Details

    If there is a collaborator or sponsor for the student and/or project the details should be recorded under project partner.  This will normally be public or private sector organisations outside the academic sector.  The provision of supervision or training grant funds by other academic groups should normally be recorded using the research organisations. 

    Click on Add New Project Partner and use Select Organisation to search for and select the relevant body. Use select department to select the relevant part of the project partner organisation.

    Complete the dates on which the project partner became involved in the project and the end date.  Both will default to the start and end date for the student. 

    The project partner may be providing co-supervision for the student.  In this case, use Select Supervisor to search for and select the correct person. If not found, then use Select Contact for recording the main contact at the project partner organisation.

    Complete the section at the bottom of the screen for funding details. Once the details have been entered, use Save to retain the details and return to the document menu. Cancel returns to the document menu without saving any changes made since the last save.

    Notes for Project Partners

    Many project partner organisations will have one department of “unlisted”.  In this case, please select this option.  If there are departments, but the relevant one is not shown, contact the Je-S Helpdesk.

    If the project is badged as CASE (Co-operative Award in Science and Engineering) the company is required to provide co-supervision and a placement for the student.  There are no minima  for financial contributions to the project and/or student.  There are specific requirements associated with some other schemes such as Industrial CASE, Engineering Doctorate or CNA where there will be minimum contribution criteria.    

    The question about whether the organisation is currently employing the student concerns the project partner.  Students may be employees who have leave of absence or similar agreement to pursue their doctoral studies.

    Data Displayed in Je-S

     

    Council

    Document Type

    Category: funding source or type of research studies

    Name: student’s name

    Department: the host department for the student

    Supervisor: the main or primary supervisor for the student

    Your ref: university reference

    RC ref: research council reference (generated after submission)

    Start Date: when the student started

    End Date: when the funding for the student is due to end

    Status: whether the document is editable, or has been submitted and is read only