General Comments

• It is noted that the overall quality of the proposals has further improved this year, reflecting thoughtful research design, clearly stated objectives, and greater attention to societal impact.
• It is observed that requested budget levels in proposals have been generally inflated, and in some cases the requested amount is substantially larger than others. It is emphasised that Principal Investigators (PIs) should be reminded to be realistic on their funding requests, to avoid over-budgeting, and to plan their expenditure truthfully and realistically from the outset.
• PIs are reminded to ensure that no duplicate funding from sources including the RGC will be / has been sought for the same / substantially similar research project. Failure to declare similar / related projects / proposals / research work (irrespective of whether submitted to / funded by the UGC / RGC and not limited to those in the past five years) may result in disqualification of their applications.

Application Stage

• It is observed that some project abstracts are written in highly technical style and use discipline-specific language. Since the project abstracts are intended for the general public, PIs are reminded to use clear, lay person friendly language to enhance the quality and readability of their proposals.
• A surge in proposals related to artificial intelligence (AI) is noted in this round. The Humanities and Social Sciences Panel encourages a more diversified range of research topics rather than homogenous research focused on the latest trends.
• Submission on “Pathways to Impact Statement” section exhibited considerable variation in structure, temporal scope and focus areas. Other than focusing on “Impact”, the "Pathway" should also be covered. Universities are encouraged to provide more structured guidance to PIs and to inspire them to contemplate the possible impacts their proposals may bring to the community.
• Proposals should include detailed justifications for the requested resources, including the hiring and workload of research staff, and state how the requested resources align with the project scope. Universities are encouraged to conduct a more detailed vetting on the budgets of PIs’ applications.
• Some panels observed an increasing number of shorter-duration proposals. PIs are reminded to adopt realistic timelines to ensure high-quality researches and outputs. At the same time, there are concerns regarding PIs’ commitment levels on the proposals, particularly for those managing multiple on-going grants or submitting proposals with excessive budget requests on personnel.
• PIs are encouraged to include well thought-out evaluation plans and value assessment strategies for monitoring and assessment of the progress of the researches and to articulate risk mitigation strategies more clearly. In this connection, universities are encouraged to provide structured guidance to PIs to enhance the overall quality of the applications.

Project Management Stage

• It is observed that some PIs have changed the objectives of the approved projects without seeking prior approval from the RGC. PIs are reminded to submit change requests to the RGC for approval as necessary.
• Noting proposals involving clinical trials in the Biology and Medicine Panel typically require substantial amount of funding, longer duration and entail complex work, PIs are encouraged to consider participating in international trials or leverage large-scale data sites to support their initiatives.

Project Completion Stage

• Universities and PIs are reminded to ensure completion reports should reach the RGC on time.
• PIs are reminded to exclude papers published or accepted prior to the commencement of their projects from their project reports. Furthermore, they are encouraged to disseminate their research in reputable peer-reviewed outlets in the respective research fields and avoid low-tier outlets.
• It is noted that some PIs included irrelevant publications / research outputs in the project reports and some did not acknowledge the RGC funding in their publications. PIs are reminded that claiming irrelevant research outputs as direct outputs of the project is considered unethical. The rating of the project may be downgraded when irrelevant work is included in the project completion report.