Heard just before Christmas that we didn’t get this. Feedback was:
- Recognised the strength of the research team, the project objectives, and the progression of the work packages.
- Noted that the project description and modelling assumptions were difficult to follow.
- Noted that workpackage 6 and workpackage 7 were under-developed and vague. Given that integration with other time-to event approaches, such as survival methods, seems a key innovation, it was surprising that this was not expanded upon in more detail.
- Were not reassured on the probability of success and how the computational problem would be solved within the proposed timeframe.
- Raised concerns about limited public engagement, as the audience appeared to be more practitioner-based than the general public.
- Would have appreciated a clear equation outlining the model, the assumptions at
various points, and the proposed outcomes. - Raised concerns about the structure of the team, noting that with the PI funded at 100% FTE to develop the software, an alternative approach—such as hiring an additional junior developer—may have been more beneficial.
Which is overall not that bad, and in terms of the writing being vague is fair enough, but a bit hard to respond to i.e the end work packages being vague is because the work hasn’t been done they rely on. In terms of most points doing a bit more pre-work seems like a solution but at that point what is the grant for!
The comment about the PI (me here) being hired at 100% as a risk is interesting as in other recent rejections we have had hiring staff as a risk. Not very clear what can be done about that.
This feedback didn’t make me very encouraged that BMBR was a worthwhile target.