Research grant, network and visiting fellowship proposals are encouraged which further the aims of MathFIT. These proposals can be either
Responsive mode proposals may be submitted at any time whereas the annual MathFIT Call will be issued in early summer so that the closing date is sometime in autumn.
It is extremely important that the following directive is followed no matter whether a MathFIT proposal is in the normal responsive mode or in reply to the annual MathFIT Call.
In order to be considered under MathFIT, the aims of MathFIT must be met by any research grant, network or visiting fellowship proposal, irrespective of the merits of the proposal. Whilst MathFIT proposals are appraised against the normal EPSRC criteria of quality, novelty, timeliness and relevance, the referees will also be asked to state whether a proposal meets the aims of MathFIT. If a responsive mode MathFIT proposal fails to meet these aims then it will simply be treated as a normal responsive mode proposal. If a proposal submitted in reply to the annual MathFIT Call fails to meet these aims then it will be rejected; although if the referees' reports are nevertheless strongly supportive then the applicant may then be offered the opportunity to immediately resubmit a revised proposal under responsive mode (otherwise the normal EPSRC procedure of waiting six months will apply).
MathFIT proposals will be assessed by referees drawn from the EPSRC College and at least one referee nominated by the proposer. Proposals which are deemed to be MathFIT and which receive at least 2 strongly supportive referee's comments will then be considered in competition with other proposals as follows.
For proposals submitted in reply to the annual MathFIT Call, there will be a special MathFIT peer review prioritisation panel (to consider only those proposals submitted in reply to the MathFIT Call).
Alternatively, MathFIT proposals submitted in responsive mode will be treated in competition with other responsive mode proposals at a normal responsive mode panel meeting: the fact that a proposal is MathFIT may result in preferential treatment being given to that proposal in the event that two proposals are adjudged to be of the same quality.
It makes sense for potential applicants to aim for the annual MathFIT Call when submitting a MathFIT proposal: they will be in competition only with other MathFIT proposals; and they will have access to the annual ear-marked funds of £1.5M. A responsive mode MathFIT proposal must compete with other proposals from across the spectrum and will only benefit from being MathFIT in the event that it is adjudged to be of the same quality as another proposal. None of the ear-marked MathFIT funds will be available for MathFIT proposals submitted in responsive mode. The reason why both types of MathFIT proposal are allowed is so that timely research proposals will not suffer due to having originated 'out of sync' with the annual MathFIT Call.
All proposals for research project, network and visiting fellowship grants should be made as are standard responsive mode grant proposals; that is, using the form EPS(RP). They should include a Case for Support structured and formatted according to the published EPSRC guidelines. If a research assistant is named in the proposal then a short CV of that person should also be included. It should be clearly stated that the proposal has been submitted under the MathFIT initiative. Further details of the application procedure can be found on the EPSRC's web-site.
Some frequently asked questions about MathFIT (including research grants and visiting fellowships) can be found here.