| 1. | Number of applications received | 32 |
| 2. | Number of full proposals received | 14 |
| 3. | Number of proposals recommended for funding | 6 |
| 4. | Success rate (over the number of applications): | 19% |
| 5. | Amount available for allocation | $130 million |
| 6.
|
Total funding amount from RGC | $130 million1 |
1 Excluding on-costs.
B) Assessment Committee’s Comments for Applicants’ Reference
1. Quality of applications (i.e. strengths, weaknesses and gaps of proposals):
Overall, the Committee is happy to note that applications have been received under all of the three key subject areas. The proposals were of a high standard, clearly outlining well-structured projects aligned with the Strategic Topics Grant, with a majority focus on health, longevity and caring community. Many proposals addressed important and policy-relevant issues, with the potential to generate tangible benefits for older adults and society. Strong proposals have effectively combined multidisciplinary expertise with innovative theoretical approaches, coherent methodologies, appropriate staffing, and adequate risk assessment.
However, a common weakness observed was over-ambition. In several proposals, it was unclear how the work could be completed within the proposed timeline and resources. This feasibility gap was further reflected in loosely integrated project components and underdeveloped risk management strategies.
In addition, it was remarked that there was room for teams to further separate the concepts of sharing information from creating real-world impact. The proposals effectively and in detail articulated how to share results, but they could have shown more clearly how the research would inspire practical updates to policies or services. This connection could be strengthened by inviting key stakeholders into the project life cycle at an earlier stage.
The Committee also noted that some proposals included components with notably high costs, for example, personnel and equipment. Members strongly encouraged project teams to carefully evaluate these cost elements for reasonableness and relevance when preparing their submissions, thereby ensuring a balanced and realistic budget. They also emphasized that proposals should be transparent about risk management, and include feasible execution plans. Proposals should also demonstrate long-term sustainability, thereby delivering lasting value for older adults, the research community, and society at large.
2. Other comments:
Structure of the proposals
To improve readability, the Committee encourages applicants to avoid overly dense or technical jargon. It was remarked that by incorporating a graphical abstract and a plain-English summary would help reviewers easily identify the project’s main contributions. For projects involving interventions, technology, or AI, the Committee pointed out that applicants must also address issues related to governance, safety, privacy, and data monitoring.
For improvements, the Committee indicated that proposals would be strengthened by providing a clear timeline with deliverables to demonstrate feasibility. They should explicitly articulate their implementation strategy, translational pathways, and plans for active stakeholder involvement throughout the project lifecycle.
The Interview
Members of the Committee strongly endorsed the single-panel format, which facilitated a comprehensive assessment of each project team’s competence and readiness across all panel members.
Members observed that the strongest teams presented themselves as unified groups, with active participation from all members and clearly defined roles. In contrast, weaker teams were less effective due to uneven participation and unclear individual roles.