The British Academy have provided updated guidance on the small grants – BA scheme notes for applicants and BA FAQs . They have asked that all applicants read the documentation carefully before starting their application.
Due to the expected high demand, we ask that if you are interested in applying to this call then please send your intention to bid form to your Funding Development Officerby 2nd May, after this date no new applications will be accepted.
Timeline
The call closes at 5pm on Wednesday 6th June 2018.
11th April 2018
Call Opens – start reading guidance
2nd May 2018
Intention to bid forms to be submitted to your faculty funding development officer.
31st May 2018
Nominated referee supporting statement to be completed via FlexiGrant
30th May 2018
Your final application must be submitted on FlexiGrant by this date at the latest.
Changes have been made to the NERC Research Grants & Fellowships Handbook in February 2018.
The important changes include:
Minimum amount per Research Organisation party – for Large Grants, there was a previous minimum of £65k per proposal or per party. This has been removed so each party can request less than £65k.
Cost items that can be excluded from Full Economic Cost – the Handbook previously refers to such “exception items”, but now specifies these items, which are: “GEF Ocean Bottom Instruments, FAAM/ARSF/BAS Twin Otter aircraft, EISCAT Radar facility or other ship-time or marine facility related costs”.
Innovation Schemes – previous related schemes have had their call titles changed and brought under the umbrella of Innovation Schemes – the Handbook contains updated details and requirements for applications to these Schemes.
Eligibility of Fellowship Holders – new version continues to provide that Fellowship holders can largely apply to NERC grants; and such Fellowships could be held at “charities, public sector organisations and eligible UK HEIs”.
Eligibility of New Investigators – previous version provided that New Investigators must be within 3 years of first becoming eligible for NERC funding as a Principal Investigator. The present version has now increased this to 5 years.
Eligibility Criteria for Researcher Co-Investigators: A Researcher Co-I is defined as a Post-doc Research Assistant who is not eligible to be a PI or Co-I but who has substantially contributed to the proposal. There are 3 criteria to be a Researcher Co-I and one of the criteria has been expanded to include “The expectation is that the researcher would be employed at least 50% FTE on the grant but there may be circumstances where this may be less (for example, they might be full time for the first 2 years of a 5 year grant…)”.
Associated Studentship: These continue to be applicable after the 2014/2015 year.
Non-UK HEI’s Involvement – the additional line here is “Except where providing a service only, or where a call allows overseas research organisation, non-UK HEIs are expected to fund their participation in projects, so will be project partners, not subcontractors or PI/Co-Is.”
Antarctic Logistic Support – If the Large grant outline requires Shiptime and/or Marine Equipment, indicative costs will be requested. To obtain these costs, a SME (Shiptime/Marine Equipment) must be submitted and approved by Marine Planning at least 2 months prior to the outline call closing date.
NERC Ship Time & Marine Equipment – previous version had separate processes for the then-called “sea time” and “marine equipment”, new process is now in place for proposals including both these components, called SME.
High Performance Computing – Previous version refers to HECToR, JWCRP/MONSooN. New version removes these references and replaces them with ARCHER, RDF, JASMIN.
For a clean copy of the NERC Grants Handbook 2018, please click here.
For a summary document outlining the above changes and an annotated NERC Grants Handbook, please contact Alice Brown, details can be found on the Funding Development Team page.
It’s been over 18 month since Bournemouth University launched its new Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework, which was designed to offer academics at all stages of their career opportunities to develop their skills, knowledge and capabilities.
Since its launch, over 150 sessions have taken place, including sandpits designed to develop solutions to key research challenges, workshops with funders such as the British Academy and the Medical Research Council and skills sessions to help researchers engage with the media and policy makers.
The Research & Knowledge Exchange Office is currently planning activities and sessions for next year’s training programme and would like your feedback about what’s worked well, areas for improvement and suggestions for new training sessions.
Tell us what you think via our surveyand be in with a chance of winning a £30 Amazon voucher. The deadline date is Wednesday 28th March.
Open access is about making the products of research freely accessible to all. It allows research to be disseminated quickly and widely, the research process to operate more efficiently, and increased use and understanding of research by business, government, charities and the wider public.
There are two complementary mechanisms for achieving open access to research.
The first mechanism is for authors to publish in open-access journals that do not receive income through reader subscriptions.
The second is for authors to deposit their refereed journal article in an open electronic archive.
These two mechanisms are often called the ‘gold’ and ‘green’ routes to open access:
Gold – This means publishing in a way that allows immediate access to everyone electronically and free of charge. Publishers can recoup their costs through a number of mechanisms, including through payments from authors called article processing charges (APCs), or through advertising, donations or other subsidies.
Green – This means depositing the final peer-reviewed research output in an electronic archive called a repository. Repositories can be run by the researcher’s institution, but shared or subject repositories are also commonly used. Access to the research output can be granted either immediately or after an agreed embargo period.
To encourage all academic communities to consider open access publishing, Authors Alliance has produced a comprehensive ‘Understanding Open Access‘ guide which addresses common open access related questions and concerns and provides real-life strategies and tools that authors can use to work with publishers, institutions, and funders to make their works more widely accessible to all.
Thursday 8 February saw the launch of BORDaR (Bournemouth Online Research Data Repository), Bournemouth University’s new research data repository, which provides a secure and open access home for data emanating from BU’s world leading research projects.
Our support for Research Data Management (RDM) begins here and is complemented by a RDM Library Guide which has been developed specifically for BU staff. Use this guide to help you deposit your data Open Access as mandated by your research funder and to increase your research impact for REF 2021 – you can find guidance on developing a Data Management Plan, managing, documenting, depositing, sharing and securing your data. You can also email bordar@bournemouth.ac.uk with your query.
Back in November a repository naming competition was held and from the Faculty of Science & Technology, Paul Cheetham’s suggestion of BORDaR was chosen as the winner by BU’s RDM Steering Group. As his prize Paul received a much cherished copy of Armin Schmidt’s Earth resistance for archaeologists, from Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor (Research and Innovation), John Fletcher.
Lizzie Gadd warns against jumping on ‘bad metrics’ bandwagons without really engaging with the more complex responsible metrics agenda beneath.
An undoubted legacy of the Metric Tide report has been an increased focus on the responsible use of metrics and along with this a notion of ‘bad metrics’. Indeed, the report itself even recommended awarding an annual ‘Bad Metrics Prize’. This has never been awarded as far as I’m aware, but nominations are still open on their web pages. There has been a lot of focus on responsible metrics recently. The Forum for Responsible Metrics have done a survey of UK institutions and is reporting the findings on 8 February in London. DORA has upped its game and appointed a champion to promote their work and they seem to be regularly retweeting messages that remind us all of their take on what it means to do metrics responsibly. There are also frequent twitter conversations about the impact of metrics in the up-coming REF. In all of this I see an increasing amount of ‘bad metrics’ bandwagon-hopping. The anti-Journal Impact Factor (JIF) wagon is now full and its big sister, the “metrics are ruining science” wagon, is taking on supporters at a heady pace.
It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge. Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing.
It’s not a bad thing, this increased awareness of responsible metrics; all these conversations. I’m responsible metrics’ biggest supporter and a regular slide in my slide-deck shouts ‘metrics can kill people!’. So why am I writing a blog post that claims that there is no such thing as a bad metric? Surely these things can kill people? Well, yes, but guns can also kill people, they just can’t do so unless they’re in the hands of a human. Similarly, metrics aren’t bad in and of themselves, it’s what we do with them that can make them dangerous.
Adequacy of the indicator for the object that it measures
Sensitivity to the intrinsic inertia of the object being measured
Homogeneity of the dimensions of the indicator.
So, you might have an indicator such as ‘shoe size’, where folks with feet of a certain length get assigned a certain shoe size indicator. No problem there – it’s adequate (length of foot consistently maps on to shoe size); it’s sensitive to the thing it measures (foot grows, shoe size increases accordingly), and it’s homogenous (one characteristic – length, leads to one indicator – shoe size). However, in research evaluation we struggle on all of these counts. Because the thing we really want to measure, this elusive, multi-faceted “research quality” thing, doesn’t have any adequate, sensitive and homogeneous indicators. We need to measure the immeasurable. So we end up making false assumptions about the meanings of our indicators, and then make bad decisions based on those false assumptions. In all of this, it is not the metric that’s at fault, it’s us.
In my view, the JIF is the biggest scapegoat of the Responsible Metrics agenda. The JIF is just the average number of cites per paper for a journal over two years. That’s it. A simple calculation. And as an indicator of the communication effectiveness of a journal for collection development purposes (the reason it was introduced) it served us well. It’s just been misused as an indicator of the quality of individual academics and individual papers. It wasn’t designed for that. This is misuse of a metric, not a bad metric. (Although recent work has suggested that it’s not that bad an indicator for the latter anyway, but that’s not my purpose here). If the JIF is a bad metric, so is Elsevier’s CiteScore which is based on EXACTLY the same principle but uses a three-year time window not two, a slightly different set of document types and journals, and makes itself freely available.
If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.
I understand why DORA trumpets the misuse of JIFs; it is rife and there are less imperfect tools for the job. But there are also other metrics that DORA doesn’t get in a flap about – like the individual h-index – which are subject to the same amount of misuse, but are actually more damaging. The individual h-index disadvantages certain demographics more than others (women, early-career researchers, anyone with non-standard career lengths); at least the JIF mis-serves everyone equally. And whilst we’re at it peer review can be an equally inadequate research evaluation tool (which, ironically, metrics have proven). So if we’re to be really fair we should be campaigning for responsible peer review with as much vigour as our calls for responsible metrics.
Bumper stickers by Paul van der Werf (CC-BY)
It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge. Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing. A little knowledge can lead to a bumper sticker culture ( “I HEART DORA” anyone? “Ban the JIF”?) which could move us away from, rather than towards, the responsible use of metrics. These concepts are easy to grasp hold of, but they mask a far more complex and challenging set of research evaluation problems that lie beneath. The responsible use of metrics is about more than the avoidance of certain indicators, or signing DORA, or even developing your own bespoke Responsible Metrics policy (as I’ve said before this is certainly easier said than done).
The responsible use of metrics requires responsible scientometricians. People who understand that there is really no such thing as a bad metric, but it is very possible to misuse them. People with a deeper level of understanding about what we are trying to measure, what the systemic effects of this might be, what indicators are available, what their limitations are, where they are appropriate, how they can best triangulate them with peer review. We have good guidance on this in the form of the Leiden Manifesto, the Metric Tide and DORA. However, these are the starting points of often painful responsible metric journeys, not easy-ride bandwagons to be jumped on. If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.
Let’s get off the ‘metric-shaming’ bandwagons, deepen our understanding and press on with the hard work of responsible research evaluation.
Elizabeth Gadd is the Research Policy Manager (Publications) at Loughborough University. She has a background in Libraries and Scholarly Communication research. She is the co-founder of the Lis-Bibliometrics Forum and is the ARMA Metrics Special Interest Group Champion
You are cordially invited to this lunchtime seminarwhich is open to all BUstaff.
Please feel free to bring your lunch.
Wednesday 24th January 2018
1 – 2 pm
B407, Bournemouth House, Lansdown Campus
The NIHR is the UK’s major funder of applied health research. The NIHR develops and supports the people who conduct and contribute to health research and equally supports the training of the next generation of health researchers. The NIHR CRN Study Support Service helps researchers set up and deliver high quality research to time and target in the NHS in England.
We are fortunate to have two Research Delivery Managers from the NIHR CRN Wessex, David Higenbottam and Alex Jones coming to BU who will be presenting a seminar about the network, funding opportunities and forthcoming strategic plan for 2018, followed by Q & A session.
Please email Michelle O’Brien (mobrien@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you are planning to attend. See you there!
Biographies
David Higenbottam Has worked in research since 2012.
2012 – 2014 South Coast DeNDRoN Network Manager.
2014 – to date Research Delivery Manager for Divisions 2 and 4 (Division 4 includes dementia as one of its specialities).
Alex Jones Worked for Hampshire & Isle of Wight CLRN from July 2013 – April 2014.
Division 5 Assistant Portfolio Manager then Portfolio Manager April 2014 – December 2017 (Division 5 includes ageing as one of its specialities).
Currently Acting Research Delivery Manager for Division 5.
Wessex CRN The Wessex CRN was formed in April 2014, its geographic footprint is Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Dorset and South Wiltshire. It comprises 12 partner NHS organisations and 10 clinical commissioning groups. Research specialities are spread across 6 Divisions.
The BBSRCs Global Food Security (GFS) programme invites expressions of interest from post-doctoral researchers to take part in a Policy Lab on the determinants of food choice (e.g. biological, social, environmental, physical and economic) and the combination of interventions across these that will lead to healthier and more sustainable diets. Policy Labs bring together early career researchers from different disciplines to scope a policy-relevant issue, with teams forming at the workshop and then competing to write a synthesis report. The winning team at the workshop will receive a £5,000 Policy Lab award to write a policy-facing report.
See the website for details of the eligibility criteria and how to apply
NERC invites ideas for scientific advances that will, over time, contribute to addressing some of these major challenges of the 21st century: benefiting from natural resources, resilience to environmental hazards, and managing environmental change. The ideas will be used to inform the development of new strategic research investments through either highlight topics (HTs) or strategic programme areas (SPAs).
Ideas can be sent to NERC at any time and can come from any individual or group, and any part of the environmental science community (including researchers and those who use environmental science research). Ideas must be submitted using the template provided for either highlight topics or strategic programme areas; this should be up to two sides of A4 written in language that is clear to a broad section of the NERC community.
Once an idea is sent to NERC, the proposer relinquishes ownership of that idea and transfers it to NERC. NERC may choose to publish or share material received.
Please refer to the guidance below, which explains what they are looking for in more detail.
For further information, they have also compiled some frequently asked questions (FAQ), which cover the different aspects of the ideas process and role of SPAG.
Please note that timings are indicative only and so may change.
HT timetable
Cut-off date for HT ideas – 15 May 2018
New HTs announced, feedback on ideas available – November 2018
SPA timetable
Cut-off date for SPA ideas – 7 September 2017
Potential SPA(s) for further development announced, feedback on ideas available – February 2018
New SPA(s) announced – Autumn 2018
Contact
NERC encourages ideas from all parts of the environmental science community and NERC staff are available to discuss potential ideas and provide advice. If you have any queries on the process or would like advice on a potential idea please contact them at idea@nerc.ac.uk in the first instance, and they will put you in touch with a NERC colleague who can help.
EPSRC is holding a two-day workshop on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. The workshop will be highly multidisciplinary as well as bringing together those who are developing platforms and standards with researchers deploying and evaluating in real world environments.
In the Balancing Capability exercise, Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing was selected as an area to grow. While this is likely to happen due to the increasing economic and social influence of the Internet of Things and related technologies, EPSRC believe that some effort is required at this stage to ensure a balanced portfolio of funded research by the end of the delivery plan period.
Moreover, while they believe this field has a key role to play in contributing to the achievement of their cross-ICT priorities, they think that to achieve the objectives described in the priorities: People at the Heart of ICT, Safe and Secure ICT and Cross-Disciplinarity and Co-Creation a mature community discussion will be required.
Further information about EPSRC‘s portfolio and strategies, see our website.
What is Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing?
Put broadly, Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (PUC) is the fundamental and applied research that aims achieve the integration of computing into any device in any location that interacts with our lives.
Research in this area is necessarily multi-disciplinary and in order to achieve success will draw-on and synthesise ideas at the boundary of numerous other strands of research. This includes:
Context awareness and affective computing in mobile systems and fundamental research into smart devices.
Communication and information management between trillions of devices as well as new forms of distributed data handling and processing at scale.
Research into the software or hardware of devices that have mobility as a unique aspect of their application. This includes the solutions to challenges of building systems on a grand scale such as interoperability, reliability and scalability.
Research into new forms of interaction with pervasive computer systems and related research into trust, privacy and security. This will require novel computer science and engineering while incorporating research from the social sciences, humanities and law.
How to apply
Those wishing to attend the workshop should complete the short Expression of Interest (EoI) form on this page.
This is a fantastic opportunity for BU academics as a lot of our research would be classed as ‘Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing’. If you do get a place, please can you let your RKEO representative know as we are interested in how this area will grow and what calls may come out of it.
EPSRC is holding two one-day workshops for Early Career Researchers who work in the area of Physical Sciences. This is a great opportunity for BU ECRs (especially those who are new to funding) in these areas to get a first hand insight to strategies and policy changes, and to network with peers and funders.
The workshops will be held in:
Glasgow – 06 March 2018
Nottingham – 14 March 2018
The workshops will provide an update to EPSRC and Physical Sciences strategies and will communicate recent and upcoming policy changes, such as the New Investigator Awards. The workshops will be attended by a number of EPSRC staff but also by experienced academics and current or previous Early Career Fellowship holders from across the Physical Sciences portfolio who will provide guidance and mentoring. The workshops will also include opportunities for networking with other ECR colleagues.
EPSRC anticipate this event will be of greatest interest to Physical Sciences researchers who are eligible to hold an EPSRC grant and hold few or no grants as a Principal Investigator.
The aims of the workshops are to:
To develop early career researchers understanding of EPSRC, including strategic priorities and funding mechanisms.
To develop relationships with Early Career researchers who will become future advocates for EPSRC.
Those wishing to attend the workshop should complete the Expression of Interest (EoI) form on this page. This will be used to select participants based on their justification of attendance as described in their EoI submission and will take into account how their research aligns to the EPSRC Physical Sciences remit and research areas. In addition, EPSRC will also ensure a balanced representation of organisation, research area, expertise and career stage.
Places are limited and the number of participants from a given organisation may have to be restricted in the event of multiple applications. Selection will primarily be based on the justification of attendance and completion of the survey is not a guarantee of attendance.
The EoI will close at 17:00 on 31 January 2018.
If you do get a place, please let your RKEO contact know as we are interested in what information will be shared, particularly if there are new initiatives for ECRs.
Date:28 February and 1 March 2018 Venue:The Woodland Grange Hotel, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV32 6RN
BBSRC, Defra and NERC, in partnership with the Sustainable Intensification Research Network (SIRN), are holding a workshop for researchers with interests in or expertise relevant to the sustainable intensification (SI) of agriculture. This workshop aims to build on the legacy of Defra’s Sustainable Intensification and provide opportunities to link with other current sustainable intensification activities. The aims of the workshop are:
To bring together the wider UK SI community with researchers involved in SIP to facilitate networking and the identification of opportunities for collaboration, building on the legacy of SIP.
To stimulate the development of high quality research proposals related to SI that address relevant research challenges and explore new ways of approaching SI.
To raise awareness of relevant Government and Research Council interests and potential funding opportunities.
There is no cost to attend the workshop, overnight accommodation (on 28 February 2018) and meals will be provided free of charge. Attendees will be expected to cover their own travel costs.
The workshop will include:
The legacy of SIP
Research challenges (and gaps) to address policy and practice needs for SI
Scientific opportunities to address those challenges
Defra and Research Council perspectives and priorities for SI research
Facilitated networking to explore collaborative opportunities
Subsequent access (limited to applications led by workshop participants) to modest funding opportunities from SIRN and Defra to facilitate the further development of collaborative proposals
The Sustainable Intensification Research Platform
The SIP is a Defra and Welsh Government funded initiative that was established to identify ways of increasing farm productivity, while reducing negative environmental impacts and enhancing ecosystem services. SIP is a multi-partner research programme including farmers, industry experts, academia, environmental organisations and policymakers. The Platform consists of three linked and transdisciplinary research projects designed to explore opportunities and risks for sustainable intensification at the farm and landscape scale. The SIP will end in November 2017 and through this workshop BBSRC, Defra, NERC and SIRN hope to help the SIP community and others to build on its legacy. That legacy is a broad one, which includes data, tools, resources, experimental sites and capabilities, and a large and well-connected community of practice.
How to attend
This workshop is for research leaders currently working on or with interests relevant to SI.
Please fill in the from below and return to sustainable.agriculture@bbsrc.ac.ukby 5 January 2018, 4pm. If you have any questions, please use the above email address. Successful applicants will be informed by email during the week beginning 15 January 2018.
The Research Councils have reviewed the current grant terms and conditions and are making changes to include additional information on up and coming legislative changes and additional clarity on the guidance provided these changes will start on Monday 15 January 2018.
The aims of the changes are to clearly communicate and clarify the responsibilities which are part of holding a Research Council Grant.
The changes include:
Compliance with Modern Slavery Act 2015
General Data Protection Regulation changes coming into effect May 2018
Transfer of grant assets to UKRI
Adding NHS Clinical sessions to the list of approved tasks
Clarity of training grants
Links to the full terms and conditions can be found in the press release.
Gene editing to eradicate unwanted animal populations, deep water lasers for trawling the sea, radiation threats from next-generation mobile phone networks and how to protect the 44% of the Earth’s surface covered by no-mans-land oceans.
These are among the 15 environmental challenges and trends cited by a diverse group of 24 researchers and experts tasked with identifying the as yet little-understood issues that could have a big impact on our natural world in the coming year.
This was the ninth NERC-funded Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation & Biological Diversity, led by William Sutherland, Professor of Conservation Biology at Cambridge University, and published in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution.
The annual report looks at new developments and threats that authors believe could present risks and opportunities in the coming year. The international team reviewed 117 potential emerging issues, whittling down to the 15 they believe may have the biggest impact – positive or negative – but are the least well-known.
Click here to see what the 15 emerging issues for 2018 were identified as.
New research was published this week titled ‘The Hidden Story: Understanding knowledge exchange partnerships with the creative economy’. The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funded the project, led by Kingston University in collaboration with University Alliance and four other institutions.
The research analyses institutional knowledge exchange data relevant to the Creative Industries from across the Alliance Universities. This is used as the basis for a new methodology for understanding the extent, nature and impact of universities’ knowledge exchange partnerships within England and Wales’ Creative Economy.
In addition to a dedicated website and the forty-page main report, there are briefings tailored to national, regional and university leaders, as well as those wishing to use the data taxonomy and evaluation tool.
It provides essential information on ways to engage with Parliament and stay up to date, as well as contact details of parliamentary teams and staff who work with research to support Parliamentarians. The pages feature a variety of case studies in which researchers from across the UK, and from diverse disciplinary backgrounds, write about their experiences of working with a number of parliamentary offices.
BU subscribes to Research Professional (RPro), which is a funding opportunities search engine and higher education sector news compiler.
RPro ran its first Round-Table Discussion in London for its client universities on 12 September 2017 on the topic of “Successful Strategies for Deploying Research Professional”.
The aims of this Discussion meeting were to:
Share experiences of use of RPro by each university’s academic cohort;
Pick and discuss different ideas of implementation;
Network with staff of other research support offices;
Gauge various institutional approaches for academic engagement with RPro.
To spark discussion around the table, an officer from the Grants & Funding Unit in the University of Central Lancashire was invited to present the strategies they have implemented to roll-out the use of RPro and the monitoring/evaluation they have conducted on RPro usage. Tom Walters from RPro facilitated the discussion.
RKEO at BU has been and is continuing to deploy most of these strategies, with varying levels of success in academic engagement over time.
The first tension is to increase academic access and use of RPro – many methods have been used to deliver this such as RPro training for new academics, webinars, references in academic inductions, monthly Blog posts and so on.
The second tension is to increase effectiveness of use by the academic at each point of access – ie. that he/she will find a relevant hit and submit an application to that call.
Effectiveness of use is difficult to measure and is reflective of the use of RPro for different reasons by its users – in general:
Senior level academics may use the ‘precision’ strategy to do focused, targeted searches which hone in on the specific; whilst
Early career academics may use the ‘recall’ strategy which is to acquire as many hits with funding opportunities as possible to see what is out there.
Tom Walters’ concluding question to the Round-Table for reflection was “What does success look like?” in relation to research activity in our universities. The general agreement on what success looked like was:
Measuring increase in submissions rather than awards;
Spreading out applications over a wide range of funders, rather than targeting a few;
Empowering academics to do their own funding opportunities searches; and
Widening the number of academics engaging with / using RPro.
Discussion continued to what universities typically requested their RPro consultant to do during their (usually) annual ‘consultation’ visit to their client university and some ideas were shared. BU will be arranging a RPro consultation day in 2018, keep an eye on this space!
RKEO is always working to ensure that the RPro service is suitable for the purposes of each academic at BU. Regardless of whether you are a RPro newbie or in need of refresher training or may need more help on advanced functionality, please contact the RKEO Funding Development Team and we’d be happy to help you.
BU staff can login below:
Other services
Don’t miss a post!
Subscribe for the BU Research Digest, delivered freshly every day.
It’s been over 18 month since Bournemouth University launched its new 
Open access is about making the products of research freely accessible to all. It allows research to be disseminated quickly and widely, the research process to operate more efficiently, and increased use and understanding of research by business, government, charities and the wider public.
The BBSRCs 
NERC 
EPSRC is holding a two-day 
The Research Councils have reviewed the current grant terms and conditions and are making 
New research was 
The UK Parliament is delighted to announce the launch of a new web hub for academic researchers.
Conversation article: London Marathon – how visually impaired people run
Horizon Europe News – December 2023