Blog & Grant Resources

Interesting plot





This will take you to the Stats Central Blog.


Useful links when developing a grant proposal

The UNSW Research Grants and Contracts (RGC) unit web page, Grant Application Tools and Resources, is invaluable. For the upcoming NHMRC Ideas Grants, specific resources are on the RGC web page, NHMRC Ideas Grants 2020 Resource Pagethe section, 8. Application Toolkit Budget Information and Resources, is particularly useful. Consult the GMO Successful Grants Library for ideas on structuring your proposal and for a better understanding of the level at which your proposal should be pitched.  
More links are provided below or you can request a free grant review from Stats Central.



               - Use this checklist to work out which parts of the guide are relevant to your application.

Other Statistics and Data Reporting Checklists for Authors
See below for some other potentially useful checklists, guides and commentaries on study design and analysis. These are primarily focussed on medical research.

Authorship guidelines when consulting with a statistician


The UNSW Procedure for Authorship and for Resolving Disputes Between Authors describes policies on authorship at UNSW. Section 2.1.1 states: 

The minimum requirement for authorship is that an author must have had a substantial intellectual contribution to a paper or research output, where any of the following conditions are met: 

a) conception and design; and/or  b) analysis and interpretation of data; and/or  c) drafting the article or revising it critically so as to contribute to the interpretation. 

Researchers planning to write a paper, who have benefited from a statistical consultation, should consider whether the statistician has met one of the above requirements. Examples of ways they could meet these criteria include at least one of the following: 

  • They made substantial contributions in the development of the design or analysis plan 
  • They recommended significant changes to a previous design or analysis plan that were followed. 
  • They provided significant material support in analysis, e.g. writing example R code, or actually undertaking parts of the analysis. 

As for any collaborator, whether or not the statistician was paid for their services should not be a consideration when assessing authorship, nor should the length of time they dedicated to the problem. The key point is whether there was a substantial intellectual contribution to design, analysis or interpretation. Providing feedback on pre-existing plans, or providing general suggestions without significant material support, would typically not warrant co-authorship, but should be acknowledged in publications (pending approval from the statistician). 

The Vancouver protocol on co-authorship further states that a co-author should satisfy the following criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved

Thus, in cases where co-authorship is warranted, the consultant (and all co-authors) should be consulted in the write-up process, and should give final approval prior to submission.

If you have any questions or feedback about this policy, feel free to discuss with your consultant or the Stats Central Director (


Related resources