no way to compare when less than two revisions

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+===== Research Environment: Grants & Scientific Authorship =====
+===Grants: Overview===
+| Grants: The application process   |
+| Scientific authorship: How to give credit   |
+| Research Grant Applications: Where Do They Come From?  |
+| What Does a Grant Application Look Like?    |
+| Review Process  |
+| So I Got a Grant. What now?  |
+| So I Got a Grant. What Are My Responsibilities?  |
+| Example Grants  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===Where Grants Come From===
+| There are more grants than you can imagine  | However, some are not that easy to find  |
+| USA: NSF, National Science Foundation	Very competitive. Typical application is over 30 pages
+| EU: Cordis  | Focus on multi-national collaboration. Typically just under 100 pages  |
+| Iceland: RANNÍS  | All sizes and shapes  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===What a Grant Application Looks Like===
+| It looks a lot like a conference paper!  | Except for a few obvious differences (such as a budget, length, and more) \\ Abstract of the work to be performed \\ Complete budget information for each of the years (usually 2-3) for which funding is sought \\ Complete information on each individual associated with the research  |
+| Prior work section  | Describes referenced previous published results of other investigators and sets the context for the contributions of the proposed work  \\ A section with information on all related work already accomplished by the person submitting the proposal  |
+| A research plan describing the order and methodology of the proposed work, with milestones and deliverables for the entire period | Must include: Predicted outcomes, pitfalls and/or possible difficulties which may be encountered, experiments/work designed to resolve these difficulties, and their predicted outcomes  |
+| Signatures of all involved  |  |
+| Letters approving the use of facilities etc.  | These depend on the nature of the research and the requirements of the particular insitution giving out the grant  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===Review Process===
+| Typically done by a committee  | There should be at least one expert in the particular area of the application, plus some people familiar with the field  |
+| RANNÍS has 3 people reviewing each application  | Sometimes outside Iceland  |
+| Reviewers grade the appliaction  | RANNÍS: Gives each appliaciton one of three grades, Fail, Medium and High  |
+| The review is final  | Reviews are returned to the applicant \\ Duration of review process: 2-4 months  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===So I Got a Grant. What now?===
+| You will sign a contract with the institution giving the grant  | This may include reconfirming that your budget and plan has not changed, or submittin a (small) revision of these  |
+| Once the contract has been signed by both parties you will get the first chunk of money |  Subsequent payments of grant will typically be incremental, based on acceptable progress reports and reached milestones  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===So I Got a Grant. What Are My Responsibilities?===
+| Financial responsibility for the work  |
+| Ethical responsibility for the work, data collection, personnel involved, publications which may occur  |
+| Responsibility for publications which may be required  |
+| Use of any funds which may be awarded  |
+| Progress reports to the grant institution  |
+| Final report when work finishes  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===Example Grants===
+| EU Cordis: Community Research & Development Information Service  | [[http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html|Cordis PF7 home page]]  |
+| RANNÍS Project Grant  | [[http://www.rannis.is/files/2111342693Ums%F3kn%20um%20verkefnisstyrk%202006%20end%20utg.rtf|Example application form]]  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===Authorship===
+| Scientific Publications: The currency of Science  | The scientific paper appearing in a peer-reviewed publication is the "currency" of science.  |
+| Date of publication, reception, acceptance  | In addition to having a particular date of publication, many journals publish the date a paper was first received by the editors, before the revies and revision process started.  |
+| Ethics - Misaccreditation (plagiarism)  | It is unethical to repeat verbatim from another author without proper accreditation. \\ It is unethical to accredit oneself with work done by others.  |
+| First author  | This is the main author of the paper, that is, the person who: \\ - is the driving force behind the work presented \\ - is the author of the ideas presented in the paper  \\ - did most of the work and implementation \\ Ideally it is also the person who wrote most of the paper.  |
+| Reality  | First author is often a professor who sticks their name on every paper published by a laboratory or department or group.  |
+| Second author  | This is the "second person in command" for the work presented in the paper, that is whoever.  |
+| Third, fourth, fifth, etc. author  | Typically a list of people who did some of the work; sometimes these are also people who had a hand in the writing of the paper, but very often they are not (mostly for practical reasons)  |
+| Extremely long authorship lists  | Becoming increasingly common in group projects  |
+| Last author  | Increasingly advisors/professors are putting themselves at the end of the authors' list on papers describing the work of their students  |
+| Acknowledgment vs. author?  | If a person is not the authors' list (for whatever reason) but contributed something to the work, it is customary to put in a thank-you note in the Acknowledgment section  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+EOF