Science, interrupted: Funding delays reduce research activity but having more grants helps.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tham WY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10132550 | biostudies-literature | 2023
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Science, interrupted: Funding delays reduce research activity but having more grants helps.
PloS one 20230426 4
I study how scientists respond to interruptions in the flow of their research funding, focusing on research grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which awards multi-year, renewable grants. However, there can be delays during the renewal process. Over a period beginning three months before and ending one year after these delays, I find that interrupted labs reduce overall spending by 50% but over 90% in the month with the largest decrease. This change in spending is mostly driven by ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMany studies find that female faculty in academic medicine, science, and engineering experience adverse workplace climates. This study longitudinally investigates whether department climate is associated with future research productivity and whether the associations are stronger for female than male faculty.MethodTwo waves of a faculty climate survey, institutional grant records, and publication records were collected for 789 faculties in academic medicine, science, and engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2000 and 2010. Research productivity was measured as Number of Publications and Number of Grants awarded, and department climate was measured with scales for professional interactions, department decision-making practices, climate for underrepresented groups, and work/life balance. Ordinary least squares and negative binomial regression methods were used to assess gender differences in productivity, influences of department climate on productivity, and gender differences in effects of climate on productivity.ResultsFemale faculty published fewer articles and were awarded fewer grants in the baseline period, but their productivity did not differ from male faculty on these measures in subsequent years. Number of Publications was positively affected by professional interactions, but negatively affected by positive work/life balance. Number of Grants awarded was positively affected by climate for underrepresented groups. These main effects did not differ by gender; however, some three-way interactions illuminated how different aspects of department climate affected productivity differently for men and women in specific situations.ConclusionsIn perhaps the first study to assess the longitudinal impact of department climate on faculty research productivity, positive department climate is associated with significantly greater productivity for all faculty-women and men. However, some positive aspects of climate (specifically, work/life balance) may be associated with lower productivity for some female faculty at specific career periods. These findings suggest that departments that wish to increase grants and publications would be wise to foster a positive workplace climate.
| S-EPMC5446612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the strong evidence of prevention as a prime defence against the disease, the majority of cancer research investment continues to be made in basic science and clinical translational research. Little quantitative data is available to guide decisions on the choice of research priorities or the allocation of research resources. The primary aim of the mapping of the European cancer prevention research landscape presented in this paper is to provide the evidence-base to inform future investments in cancer research. Using bibliometric data to identify funders that are active in prevention research in Europe and in the world, we have identified that 14% of cancer research papers had a focus on prevention research and those were funded by 16% of all the European cancer research funders. An important finding of our study is the lack of research on primary prevention with primary prevention funders accounting for 25% of European cancer prevention funders, meaning that less than 4% of all European cancer research funders identified show an interest in primary prevention. An additional analysis revealed that 7% of European cancer prevention research papers are categorised as implementation projects, meaning that only 1% of all cancer research publications are implementation research in cancer prevention. This paper highlights that the narrow focus on biology and treatment in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as primary prevention and secondary prevention and a larger concentration on implementation research. These data can help support a more policy-focused cancer research agenda for individual European governments and charitable and philanthropic organisations and stimulate joining efforts across Europe to create a more systematic and structured approach to cancer prevention.
| S-EPMC10697826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Leveraging emerging opportunities in data science to open new frontiers in heart, lung, blood, and sleep research is one of the major strategic objectives of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), one of the 27 Institutes/Centers within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). To assess NHLBI's recent funding of research grants in data science and to identify its relative areas of focus within data science, a portfolio analysis from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2017 was performed. In this portfolio analysis, an efficient and reliable methodology was used to identify data science research grants by utilizing several NIH databases and search technologies (iSearch, Query View Reporting system, and IN-SPIRE [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA]). Six hundred thirty data science-focused extramural research grants supported by NHLBI were identified using keyword searches based primarily on NIH's working definitions of bioinformatics and computational biology. Further analysis characterized the distribution of these grants among the heart, lung, blood, and sleep disease areas as well as the subtypes of data science projects funded by NHLBI. Information was also collected for data science research grants funded by other NIH institutes/centers using the same search and analysis methodology. The funding comparison among different NIH institutes/centers highlighted relative data science areas of emphasis and further identified opportunities for potential data science areas in which NHLBI could foster research advances.
| S-EPMC7032595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFunding agencies constitute one essential pillar for policy makers, researchers and health service delivery institutions. Such agencies are increasingly providing support for science implementation. In this paper, we investigate health research funding agencies and how they support the integration of science into policy, and of science into practice, and vice versa.MethodsWe selected six countries: Australia, The Netherlands, France, Canada, England and the United States. For 13 funding agencies, we compared their intentions to support, their actions related to science integration into policy and practice, and the reported benefits of this integration. We did a qualitative content analysis of the reports and information provided on the funding agencies' websites.ResultsMost funding agencies emphasized the importance of science integration into policy and practice in their strategic orientation, and stated how this integration was structured. Their funding activities were embedded in the push, pull, or linkage/exchange knowledge transfer model. However, few program funding efforts were based on all three models. The agencies reported more often on the benefits of integration on practice, rather than on policy. External programs that were funded largely covered science integration into policy and practice at the end of grant stage, while overlooking the initial stages. Finally, external funding actions were more prominent than internally initiated bridging activities and training activities on such integration.ConclusionsThis paper contributes to research on science implementation because it goes beyond the two community model of researchers versus end users, to include funding agencies. Users of knowledge may be end users in health organizations like hospitals; civil servants assigned to decision making positions within funding agencies; civil servants outside of the Ministry of Health, such as the Ministry of the Environment; politicians deciding on health-related legislation; or even university researchers whose work builds on previous research. This heterogeneous sample of users may require different user-specific mechanisms for research initiation, development and dissemination. This paper builds the foundation for further discussion on science implementation from the perspective of funding agencies in the health field. In general, case studies can help in identifying best practices for evidence-informed decision making.
| S-EPMC3939639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices.
| S-EPMC4973366 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe existing grant review criteria do not consider unique methods and priorities of Dissemination and Implementation Science (DIS). The ImplemeNtation and Improvement Science Proposals Evaluation CriTeria (INSPECT) scoring system includes 10 criteria based on Proctor et al.'s "ten key ingredients" and was developed to support the assessment of DIS research proposals. We describe how we adapted INSPECT and used it in combination with the NIH scoring system to evaluate pilot DIS study proposals through our DIS Center.MethodsWe adapted INSPECT to broaden considerations for diverse DIS settings and concepts (e.g., explicitly including dissemination and implementation methods). Five PhD-level researchers with intermediate to advanced DIS knowledge were trained to conduct reviews of seven grant applications using both the INSPECT and NIH criteria. The INSPECT overall scores range from 0 to 30 (higher scores are better), and the NIH overall scores range from 1 to 9 (lower scores are better). Each grant was independently reviewed by two reviewers, then discussed in a group meeting to compare the experiences using both criteria to evaluate the proposal and to finalize scoring decisions. A follow-up survey was sent to grant reviewers to solicit further reflections on each scoring criterion.ResultsAveraged across reviewers, the INSPECT overall scores ranged from 13 to 24, while the NIH overall scores ranged from 2 to 5. Reviewer reflections highlighted the unique value and utility for each scoring criterion. The NIH criteria had a broad scientific purview and were better suited to evaluate more effectiveness-focused and pre-implementation proposals not testing implementation strategies. The INSPECT criteria were easier to rate in terms of the quality of integrating DIS considerations into the proposal and to assess the potential for generalizability, real-world feasibility, and impact. Overall, reviewers noted that INSPECT was a helpful tool to guide DIS research proposal writing.ConclusionsWe confirmed complementarity in using both scoring criteria in our pilot study grant proposal review and highlighted the utility of INSPECT as a potential DIS resource for training and capacity building. Possible refinements to INSPECT include more explicit reviewer guidance on assessing pre-implementation proposals, providing reviewers with the opportunity to submit written commentary with each numerical rating, and greater clarity on rating criteria with overlapping descriptions.
| S-EPMC9945623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants.MethodsStudies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs, the Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews, and the Campbell Library were searched from 2005 to April 2016. A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles. Two individuals screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data with discrepancies resolved by a third person consistently.ResultsAfter screening 5524 citations and 170 full-text articles, one article evaluating gender-blinding of grant applications using an uncontrolled before-after study design was included. In this study, 891 applications for long-term fellowships in 2006 were included and 47% of the applicants were women. These were scored by 13 peer reviewers (38% were women). The intervention included eliminating references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendations, and interview reports that were sent to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly.ConclusionsThere is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias should be adapted and tested in the context of grant peer review to determine if they will have an impact.
| S-EPMC5218731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Funding has been viewed in the literature as one of the main determinants of scientific activities. Also, at an individual level, securing funding is one of the most important factors for a researcher, enabling him/her to carry out research projects. However, not everyone is successful in obtaining the necessary funds. The main objective of this work is to measure the effect of several important factors such as past productivity, scientific collaboration or career age of researchers, on the amount of funding that is allocated to them. For this purpose, the paper estimates a temporal non-linear multiple regression model. According to the results, although past productivity of researchers positively affects the funding level, our findings highlight the significant role of networking and collaboration. It was observed that being a member of large scientific teams and getting connected to productive researchers who have also a good control over the collaboration network and the flow of information can increase the chances for securing more money. In fact, our results show that in the quest for the research money it is more important how researchers build their collaboration network than what publications they produce and whether they are cited.
| S-EPMC4519253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A classic thesis is that scientific achievement exhibits a "Matthew effect": Scientists who have previously been successful are more likely to succeed again, producing increasing distinction. We investigate to what extent the Matthew effect drives the allocation of research funds. To this end, we assembled a dataset containing all review scores and funding decisions of grant proposals submitted by recent PhDs in a €2 billion granting program. Analyses of review scores reveal that early funding success introduces a growing rift, with winners just above the funding threshold accumulating more than twice as much research funding (€180,000) during the following eight years as nonwinners just below it. We find no evidence that winners' improved funding chances in subsequent competitions are due to achievements enabled by the preceding grant, which suggests that early funding itself is an asset for acquiring later funding. Surprisingly, however, the emergent funding gap is partly created by applicants, who, after failing to win one grant, apply for another grant less often.
| S-EPMC5948972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Agencies that fund scientific research must chooseis it more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers? Large grants would be more effective only if scientific impact increases as an accelerating function of grant size. Here, we examine the scientific impact of individual university-based researchers in three disciplines funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We considered four indices of scientific impact: numbers of articles published, numbers of citations to those articles, the most cited article, and the number of highly cited articles, each measured over a four-year period. We related these to the amount of NSERC funding received. Impact is positively, but only weakly, related to funding. Researchers who received additional funds from a second federal granting council, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, were not more productive than those who received only NSERC funding. Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding. Impact per dollar was therefore lower for large grant-holders. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that larger grants lead to larger discoveries. Further, the impact of researchers who received increases in funding did not predictably increase. We conclude that scientific impact (as reflected by publications) is only weakly limited by funding. We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than "excellence", are likely to prove to be more productive.
| S-EPMC3686789 | biostudies-literature