DECRA Significance Template – Fill-in-the-Blank Sentence

This guide shows how the Australian Research Council rejoinder can lift your Discovery Early Career application.

Think of the rejoinder as your chance to align the project to what matters for people and Australian research while staying within tight limits.

Start by assembling three support teams: emotional, spitballing and reading. Skim assessor comments, colour‑code positives, criticisms and queries, and map each point back to your proposal.

Use a clear process to turn scattered feedback into a persuasive narrative. Lean on existing proposal material rather than new claims. Where assessors contradict each other, use that to sharpen your reasons.

We offer a practical fill‑in‑the‑blank bank you can copy and adapt, plus a way to save time and reduce overwhelm. With targeted support and a step‑by‑step approach, you can show assessors that your project will deliver for people, your field and the ARC.

Key Takeaways

Treat the rejoinder as a focused chance to foreground your project’s value.
Assemble support early and colour‑code assessor comments for clarity.
Reference existing proposal text; avoid introducing new claims.
Use contradictions in feedback to strengthen your argument.
Apply the fill‑in sentence bank to save time and stay ARC‑savvy.

Why significance matters now for ARC DECRA in Australia

Assessors read many applications and look first for a clear claim: why this work matters for people and national outcomes. A short, direct case lets the australian research council and reviewers see value quickly.

Search intent and what readers will gain

This section gives practical, ARC‑specific steps to frame impact. You’ll get a concise checklist that helps shape language for assessors and a sentence bank to speed drafting.

Clear framing for people, field and australian research.
Checklist to connect claims to assessors’ priorities.
Advice for tightening your application under tight word limits.

Eligibility, success rates, and the role of assessors

Discovery Early Career awards target early career researchers within about five research‑active years post‑PhD, with allowances for interruptions.

Success rates typically sit between 12% and 20% across different years. That makes the case for impact a make‑or‑break part of a competitive grant.

Engage people with College of Experts experience early. Clear links back to the proposal and a structured response to criticisms improve how assessors and reviewers judge feasibility and benefit.

“Focus on practical benefits and national relevance; assessors must be able to say why this matters.”

Measure	Typical Values	Action
Success rate	12%–20%	Prioritise clear impact language
Eligibility window	~5 years post‑PhD	Note interruptions and document them
Scheme scope	Non‑medical	Use NHMRC for medical projects

Practical reason: treat the rejoinder as strategic communication. Seek targeted advice from those with panel experience and use focused edits to make assessors your advocates.

Setting up for success: people, process, and inputs before you write

Start by gathering the right people and a simple process so the heavy lifting happens before you open the rejoinder editor. A short plan saves time and keeps judgment clear.

Assemble your support teams

Build three groups early: an emotional circle to debrief, a spitballing partner to test structure, and a reading team with ARC experience to critique drafts.

Work with the research council process and timelines

Respect deadlines and the early career rhythm. Block discrete periods for reading, editing and sign‑off so energy stays focused.

Skim, sort and colour‑code assessors’ comments

Move assessor text into a working doc and sort by criteria. Use green for strengths, red for criticisms and orange for queries.

Cluster contradictions with attributions so you can answer them once and show balanced judgement.

Choose a clear rejoinder structure

Pick the way that suits your case: big‑to‑small for impact, assessor‑by‑assessor for completeness, or criteria‑by‑criteria for clarity.

“Define the one‑sentence takeaway you want assessors to remember.”

Plan short, timed steps: read, sort, choose structure.
Bring in lived ARC experience to sharpen what matters.
Keep the work humane: use your support and protect focus.

How to use the decra significance template step‑by‑step

Lead with who is affected and what will change: a concise claim helps assessors see value in one reading. State the real‑world problem, name beneficiaries, and link to national benefit quickly.

Clarify the problem

Say why the research matters for people, the field and Australia. Point to specific gaps in the literature and practical harms or missed opportunities.

Articulate contribution

Define the new knowledge, methods or datasets you will deliver and tie them to Discovery Early outcomes. Use one clear example sentence: “This project addresses [gap], delivering [contribution] that enables [benefit], supported by [team/support], as detailed in [proposal refs].”

Demonstrate feasibility

Summarise your track record and the team’s strengths. Note institutional support, equipment and timelines that de‑risk the work.

Align to ARC criteria and link evidence

Map each claim to significance, innovation, approach and candidate quality. Quote reviewer positives, cite proposal pages for rebuttals, and reconcile conflicting comments briefly.

Step	Focus	Quick action
1	Problem	One‑line impact claim
2	Contribution	List deliverables and Discovery outcomes
3	Feasibility	Show track record and support

Drafting with confidence: style, limits, and ARC‑savvy wording

Make every word pull weight — draft with the counter on and prioritise clarity over flourish. Treat the character limit as a guide, not an obstacle. Short, front‑loaded sentences help busy assessors find your point fast.

Keep the focus on the original proposal. Don’t introduce new claims; instead, point to specific proposal sections when answering comments. That keeps the process clean and defensible.

Write within character limits and prioritise clarity over repetition

Lock in scope by drafting directly in the application editor. Trim adjectives and keep verbs active: deliver, validate, scale.

Turn critiques into advantages and reference the proposal, not new claims

Reframe omissions as deliberate focus or staged delivery to reduce perceived risk.
Answer briefly to every comment and point to a proposal section for detail.
Time‑box your work: draft, rest, revise — then get a colleague to check clarity.

“A calm, evidence‑based tone converts criticism into clarity.”

Finish by stating the single strongest reason your decra case advances the field and delivers value for Australia. That one line should stay visible throughout edits.

Fill‑in‑the‑blank sentence bank and mini examples

Start by naming who benefits and what will change. Short, concrete claims help reviewers and assessors find value fast. Use the lines below as plug‑and‑play sentences you can adapt to your proposal and rejoinder.

Significance opener sentences

This research addresses [national/field gap], improving outcomes for [people/group] by delivering [clear benefit] aligned to Australia’s priorities.
By focusing on [problem], this project will reduce [harm] for [people] and inform policy in year [1/2/3].

Contribution and benefit statements

Our project will generate [new knowledge/method], enabling [downstream impact], as detailed in [proposal section/page].
This work delivers [deliverable] that reviewers flagged as a field need and that supports industry and education outcomes.

Feasibility and track‑record bridges

Supported by [facility/partner/support] and evidenced by our [track record/publications], we will reach [milestone] within [timeframe].
See proposal p. [n] for methods and prior datasets that de‑risk this plan.

Rejoinder pivots that address assessors’ comments

While Assessor A queried [issue], Assessors B and C noted [strength]; our approach integrates both perspectives by [concise resolution].
We prioritised [scope choice] to ensure quality within the Discovery Early timeframe; extensions are planned in a later phase.

Calls to action for support, collaboration, and education impact

We welcome support from [partner/sector] to accelerate translation and invite colleagues to get feedback on shared methods via [platform].
Outputs will inform training resources for [students/teachers/industry], building capability from year [1] onward.

“Before submission, get feedback from two readers—one domain expert and one generalist—to test clarity across audiences and improve writing efficiency.”

Mini example: This decra project will resolve [X] using [Y method], delivering [Z dataset] that reviewers identified as a field‑wide need (proposal p. [n]).

Conclusion

End by pinning one concise claim: state clearly what the project delivers, who benefits and why this matters for people and Australia.

After your final draft, get feedback from a colleague and send the application to your research office for checks. Mark the milestone, thank your support team, and note improvements for next year.

Track lessons learned so you can update your record and plan future funding pathways. If you’re eligible to reapply, capture the changes you’ll make and schedule time to revise the draft.

Keep a one‑line statement of your reasons and stick to it as you polish. Then submit with intent, note three things to improve, and rest—your career and research deserve that care.

FAQ

What is the purpose of this DECRA significance guide?

This guide helps early career researchers craft a clear, persuasive significance statement for ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award applications. It explains why significance matters, how assessors read proposals and offers practical sentence starters to speed drafting while keeping claims evidence‑based and ARC‑aligned.

Who should use these examples and the sentence bank?

Early career researchers preparing an ARC Discovery Early Career (DECRA) application will get most value. Supervisors, mentors, grant officers and research support staff can also use the bank to give focused feedback and to coach applicants on clarity, feasibility and alignment with ARC criteria.

How does “significance” affect ARC assessment and success rates?

Assessors weight significance alongside innovation, approach and candidate track record. A tightly argued case that links impact for people, the field and Australia increases the chance of a positive score. Many unsuccessful applications falter because significance is vague or unsupported, so precise framing matters.

What should I prepare before drafting the significance section?

Assemble a small support team for emotional backup, spitballing and rigorous reading. Gather assessor comments from past rounds, institutional letters of support, evidence of impact, and timelines for ARC processes. Colour‑code feedback to surface recurring issues before you write.

How do I balance ambition with feasibility in the statement?

State bold outcomes but anchor them in demonstrable feasibility: your track record, team expertise, institutional support and realistic milestones. Assessors reward credible pathways to impact rather than overreaching claims with weak evidence.

Which structure should I choose to present significance?

Pick what best suits your project: big‑to‑small (national impact down to specific outputs), assessor‑by‑assessor (respond to known reviewer concerns), or criteria‑by‑criteria (directly map text to ARC headings). Consistency and clarity are more important than novelty of structure.

How can I use reviewer feedback to strengthen my statement?

Extract constructive points, group similar concerns and use them to refine wording or add evidence. Where reviewers praised aspects, cite those as corroborating evidence. For contradictions, acknowledge limits and explain mitigation or alternative routes to impact.

What language and tone work best for ARC assessors?

Use plain, assertive Australian English. Prioritise clarity, active verbs and specific outcomes. Avoid jargon and unnecessary repetition. Make each sentence advance the case for contribution, innovation or feasibility to keep within character limits.

How many times can I use the sentence bank phrases in my application?

Use the bank as inspiration, not as a script. Tailor each phrase to your project and evidence. Repetition weakens impact and risks hitting character limits, so aim for variety and specificity while preserving persuasive structure.

What are quick checks before submission?

Verify alignment with ARC criteria, confirm character limits, ensure claims are linked to evidence, and run a readability pass for plain language. Ask two colleagues—one expert, one non‑specialist—to read the significance section for clarity and persuasive force.

How should I record and track versions and feedback?

Keep a simple change log with dates, reviewer names and main edits. Version control helps trace decisions and ensures you can map improvements to specific feedback. This record also supports rebuttals and future applications.

Can the guide help with non‑ARC grants or fellowship applications?

Yes. The principles—clarify problem, demonstrate contribution, prove feasibility, and align with assessment criteria—apply across many schemes. Adapt wording and evidence emphasis to each funder’s priorities and submission rules.

How do I show national benefit and community impact effectively?

Link research outcomes to tangible benefits for people, industry or policy in Australia. Use concrete examples, potential pathways to implementation, and partner support letters to show how work will translate beyond academia.

What common mistakes should I avoid in the significance section?

Avoid vague claims, unsupported impact statements, excess jargon, and ignoring prior reviewer concerns. Don’t introduce new aims late in the application and don’t over‑claim feasibility without documented support or realistic timelines.

Where can I get additional feedback on drafts before submission?

Use university research offices, experienced supervisors, mentor networks and grant writing workshops. Seek reviewers who know ARC expectations. External mock assessors or peers with successful ARC experience give the most targeted advice.