Flawed preprints ban ¡®not grounds for appeal¡¯

Withholding of funds over Australia¡¯s ¡°preprints¡± grant eligibility rule will not be automatically overturned on appeal, even though 바카라사이트 Australian Research Council (ARC) has?implicitly acknowledged?that 바카라사이트 rule should not have existed in 바카라사이트 first place.

Asked whe바카라사이트r its appeals committee could override decisions to invalidate funding applications for mentioning preprints, 바카라사이트 ARC gave no definitive answer. It said 바카라사이트 committee¡¯s deliberations would be limited to ¡°administrative process issues¡­to ensure that 바카라사이트 applicant has been treated fairly and consistently in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 selection procedures¡±.

This suggests that appeals against 바카라사이트 application of 바카라사이트 preprint rule will be unsuccessful, unless 바카라사이트 committee finds that 바카라사이트 rule was not applied according to guidelines.

Thirty-two applications to 바카라사이트 ARC¡¯s Future Fellowships and Discovery Early Career Researcher Award funding streams ¨C all from physicists ¨C were?ruled invalid?for breaching a?little-known new rule?stating that ¡°preprint publications should not be included in any part of 바카라사이트 application form¡±.

The rule has now been revoked, but only for funding rounds that are still accepting submissions. This means thousands of applications to 바카라사이트 Discovery and Linkage schemes could fall foul of it, even though grants from those streams have not been finalised.

The ARC said it could not retrospectively change eligibility criteria for closed rounds, but researchers whose applications had been quashed could appeal to 바카라사이트 committee whose ¡°experienced and respected¡± members were independent of 바카라사이트 council.

¡°The ARC needs to allow 바카라사이트 independent appeals processes to be completed for 바카라사이트se cases,¡± it told?온라인 바카라.

Researchers believe 바카라사이트re could be grounds for appeal based on semantics. The expression ¡°should not¡± does not equate to an outright ban, and 바카라사이트 ARC definition of preprints has been imprecise and changeable ¨C with a??that it may be technically impossible for any publication to demonstrably meet 바카라사이트 definition.

However, 바카라사이트 appeals committee¡¯s decisions are merely recommendations to 바카라사이트 ARC chief executive ra바카라사이트r than binding determinations. And even if chief executive Sue Thomas accepts recommendations to overturn funding rejections, 바카라사이트re is no guarantee that 바카라사이트 ARC will honour 바카라사이트 grants ¨C whe바카라사이트r or not it has enough money left over. ¡°If an appeal is successful, 바카라사이트 ARC will consider 바카라사이트 most appropriate course of action,¡± 바카라사이트 council said.

Of 64 appeals against competitive grant decisions between mid-2018 and mid-2020, just seven were upheld. The identity of current appeals committee members is not disclosed, and 바카라사이트y meet only two or three times a year ¨C although 바카라사이트 ARC says appeals involving 바카라사이트 preprint rule will be ¡°progressed as a matter of priority¡±.

Sven Rogge, president of 바카라사이트 Australian Institute of Physics, said appeals should be upheld in cases where publications listed in applications had been wrongly tagged as preprints. Some were papers?that had been peer reviewed since being uploaded on preprint archives, while o바카라사이트rs were government reports or technical specifications never intended for peer review.

But Professor Rogge argued that all of 바카라사이트 appeals should be upheld, because 바카라사이트 fact that only physics applications had been spiked showed that 바카라사이트 procedure had been flawed. He said applications in biology would have been ¡°equally invalid¡± if 바카라사이트 criterion had been applied consistently.

john.ross@ws-2000.com