糖心Vlog

Toll of ARC鈥檚 preprints rule revealed

Fears for physics pipeline as 32 researchers relinquish up to A$22m for citing preprints

Published on
August 26, 2021
Last updated
August 26, 2021
Research. papers, peer review, physics
Source: iStock

More than 30 academics have had their careers potentially derailed by聽Australia鈥檚 controversial preprints rule, with up to A$22聽million (拢12聽million) siphoned from physics research.

Fifteen applications to the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) programme were ruled invalid because of聽the inclusion of聽preprints, according to a聽document tabled in聽parliament, while 17聽applicants for the mid-career Future Fellowships scheme met the same fate.

The 32 applicants had sought combined funding of almost A$22聽million, primarily for research in astronomical and space sciences, atomic and plasma physics, quantum physics and condensed matter physics.

The document was tabled in accordance with an order passed by the Senate following widespread criticism of the Australian Research Council (ARC) for banning references to preprints in funding applications.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Sven Rogge, president of the Australian Institute of Physics, said the quashing of the 32 applications would create a聽鈥渕assive kink in the pipeline鈥 of his discipline. He said DECRA and Future Fellowships grants were often the 鈥渕ake or break鈥 of academic careers, providing one-off opportunities for tenure track.

鈥淚f their grant is ineligible, that window is gone,鈥 Professor Rogge said. 鈥淚f you rip [money] out of physics, that鈥檚 bad to begin with. But doing it at the point where we have early career researchers establishing themselves is the worst thing you can聽do. That鈥檚 what we live聽on, bringing good new people into the system.鈥

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

He said that while the grant money denied to the 32 applicants would have gone to others, they most likely would not have been physicists: 鈥淭hese people properly cited the work of other people, which is absolutely in聽line with proper publication etiquette. The ARC, without consultation, put in a聽rule that forbids聽that.

鈥淲hat鈥檚 the point of a rule that has no positive impact, and punishes people who wanted to be totally upfront and give the assessors the best possible information?鈥

Professor Rogge said the preprints rule should not be applied to forthcoming funding rounds for the Discovery Projects, Centres of Excellence and Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities schemes. He said applicants who had been denied funding because of the preprints rule should have their grants restored, if聽necessary by taking money from other funding pools: 鈥淭hat would hurt the other schemes, but it would help the people that really need聽it the聽most.鈥

Greens education spokeswoman Mehreen Faruqi said the preprints rule must be rescinded. 鈥淎ll applications that were thrown out should be immediately reconsidered for grant funding without the nonsensical rule hindering their eligibility,鈥 Dr Faruqi said.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

鈥淭his whole saga has hit a nerve about the broken and declining state of research funding in this country. Researchers deserve so much better.鈥

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT