What do the changes to research impact and score descriptors mean for your 2026 NHMRC Investigator Grant proposal?
- Dr Catherine Dandie
- May 26
- 4 min read
NHMRC Investigator Grants are due to open on June 4, 2025, so if you’re thinking about applying, now is the time to get cracking. Fortunately NHMRC released an excerpt of the proposed new guidelines so applicants can get a head start on drafting or revising their submissions. So, what’s changed?
Research impact:
The biggest change is to the assessment of research impact as part of an applicant’s track record. If you’ve been keeping your eyes on this criterion over the past couple of rounds, you may have been expecting these changes. Interim changes last year saw the 3 separate fields for the research impact claim brought together into one single field, while retaining separate scoring for each of the sub-criteria, and the reintroduction of a separate field for all evidence. This year we still have a single field for the research impact claim, but it is assessed on only 2 sub-criteria: the reach and significance of the research impact (10%) and the applicant’s contribution to the research impact (10%). And we still have a separate field for all evidence to substantiate your claim. The instructions now also ask for a ‘single coherent narrative for their ‘pathway to impact’ that addresses both sub-criteria’. So while the scoring is still broken down by these 2 sub-criteria, the requirement is to provide a convincing and coherent narrative – quite a departure from the structure required in previous rounds.
The research impact types and examples for each type of impact (Knowledge, Health, Economic, Social) have not changed substantially – so you still need to choose the main impact category/ies in which your research has had the strongest impact, taking care to provide verifiable evidence of the impact, rather than prospective or anticipated benefits. The score descriptors for all impact types have been updated for this round, so read these carefully to ensure that you are providing strong evidence that aligns with the descriptors. For instance, for knowledge impact, to score a 7 (the highest possible score), reviewers are looking for robust, verifiable evidence of one or more of the following:
knowledge impact that has led to new knowledge within the field that is paradigm-shifting or transformative and recognised internationally
influence of the field of research (FoR)/research that is transformative and beyond the specific FoR
an influence on the development of a new field that is central or crucial and recognised internationally.
To evidence this sort of impact, it is going to be important to show the international recognition of your research and the transformative influence on new knowledge within or beyond your field or the development of a completely new field of research.
There are significant changes to the assessment for the applicant’s contribution to the research impact, which reflect NHMRC’s adoption of the research lifecycle and pathway to impact (Fig. 1). This framework emphasises that there are many different contributions a researcher might make along the pathway to impact at different points in the research lifecycle – with ‘pathway to impact’ defined as the sum of contributions by an applicant at any stage in the research lifecycle to maximise the potential reach and significance of the research.
A contribution can mean different things depending on the stage of the research lifecycle. It can be activities that are part of the research planning and conceptualisation process, such as consulting with relevant stakeholders to prioritise research needs, through to dissemination and presentation of results to appropriate stakeholders and target audiences to ensure maximum knowledge transfer or uptake of research outcomes.
The score descriptors now reflect these changes too – with the highest scoring (to score a 7) description of the applicant’s contribution along the pathway to impact as follows:
proactive and deliberate: fully integrated into their research planning and/or activities
targeted: timed optimally for maximum benefit and with the most appropriate stakeholders
effective: recent (contributions continuing into the applicant’s 10-year assessment timeframe) or ongoing contributions that were essential to realising the impact.
Think about your research program and the activities you have undertaken to maximise the impact that would not or could not have happened without you and your proactive, targeted investment of time, energy and expertise – these may be the compelling examples you need to describe here to evidence your contribution to realising, sustaining and maximising the research impact.
Other changes to be aware of:
Leadership – now a single 8000-character field that incorporates one or more of the 4 leadership categories (Research Mentoring, Research Programs and Team Leadership, Institutional Leadership, Research Policy and Professional Leadership) in a single coherent narrative. While there is no requirement now to provide leadership details from all categories, it is likely that well-rounded research leaders or emerging leaders will still provide information to address all categories.
Knowledge gain – changes to score descriptors here reflect the changes to research impact, with a new score descriptor targeting your ‘plans to contribute to maximising the potential impact of the proposed research (along the impact pathway’- to score the highest possible here (a 7) you will need to demonstrate that these plans are fully integrated into each stage of the research lifecycle and optimally targeted to maximise the potential benefit. There is another new score descriptor addressing risk management. While this has been a feature of Ideas Grants over many years, this is the first time this has been featured in the scoring of Investigator Grants, putting additional pressure on your 5-page proposal limit. The score descriptor asks for a demonstrated ‘risk management strategy that identifies and mitigates potential risks to the success of the research (e.g. scientific, technical, financial, compliance/regulatory, operational)’ – to score well here, your risk management strategy needs to be ‘entirely appropriate, identifies all risks and has a comprehensive mitigation plan’. Given this is a new element of scoring, it is likely that applicants will want to highlight this as part of their research plan – perhaps as part of each aim/theme/stream or as an overarching risk management plan that covers the whole proposal, depending on the type of research and project structure.
댓글