As 2025 draws to a close, several clear patterns have emerged across Australia’s major funding schemes — ARC, NHMRC, CRC-P and AEA.
This year revealed what reviewers consistently reward, what they disregard, and what researchers must prioritise heading into 2026.

Below is a synthesis of the strongest lessons from 2025, along with strategic guidance for teams preparing for the year ahead.

1. Early preparation predicted success every time

Across schemes, the most competitive proposals came from teams that began preparations months before the deadline. Early starters had:

• stronger and more genuine partnerships
  
• well-tested impact narratives
  
• pilot data already validated
  
• clearer alignment with guidelines and national priorities
  
  

By contrast, late-start projects showed:

• rushed narratives
  
• weaker justification of need and feasibility
  
• superficial partnerships
  
• higher-stress workflows and quality trade-offs
  
  

In 2025, early scoping wasn’t a “nice to have” — it was a clear differentiator.

2. National priorities shaped the winners — and will intensify in 2026

The strongest projects aligned tightly with Australia’s strategic priorities.
Themes that dominated 2025 and will only strengthen in 2026 include:

• sovereign manufacturing capability
• defence and national security innovation
• clean energy, hydrogen and decarbonisation
• critical technologies and digital capability
• regional partnerships and industry-led collaboration
  
  

Projects that could clearly articulate how they advanced these priorities consistently outperformed those that could not.

3. Reviewer expectations for clarity increased noticeably

Panels repeatedly prioritised proposals that were:

• purposeful
  
• coherent
  
• easy to follow
  
• aligned with national benefit
  
• structured with clear impact pathways
  

Reviewers reported that clarity, not complexity, was the primary differentiator.

The proposals that scored highly were those that:

• opened with the solution
  
• presented a clear logic chain
  
• explained significance without jargon
  
• demonstrated impact in measurable terms
  
  

Even highly technical research succeeded when its narrative was accessible.

4. Partnership quality mattered more than partnership quantity

Across ARC Linkage, CRC-P, and industry-linked programs, funders rewarded projects that went beyond token involvement.

Successful partnerships demonstrated:

• co-design from the idea stage
• balanced contributions and co-funding
• mutual benefit for all parties
• evidence of long-term collaboration
• credible translation pathways
  
  

Superficial, last-minute or poorly defined partnerships were consistently downgraded.

In 2025, partnership depth became just as important as scientific merit.

The Strategic Imperative for 2026

2026 will be a challenging year:

• ARC Linkage will run only ONE assessment round
  
  
• competition will be sharper
  
• funders will heighten scrutiny of national impact and translation
  
• partnership quality will matter more than ever
  
• clarity and alignment will determine competitiveness
  

Teams that begin preparations now — especially narrative framing, impact case-building and partner engagement — will enter 2026 with a meaningful advantage.

The strongest performers next year will be the ones who act early, learn from the patterns of 2025, and shape their proposals with intention, clarity and collaboration.

👉 If you want to get ahead of the 2026 rounds, Straight Up can help you start now.