Dataset Information

Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health.

ABSTRACT: A previous report found an association of topic choice with race-based funding disparities among R01 applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') between 2011 and 2015. Applications submitted by African American or Black ('AAB') Principal Investigators ('PIs') skewed toward a small number of topics that were less likely to be funded (or 'awarded'). It was suggested that lower award rates may be related to topic-related biases of peer reviewers. However, the report did not account for differential funding ecologies among NIH Institutes and Centers ('ICs'). In a re-analysis, we find that 10% of 148 topics account for 50% of applications submitted by AAB PIs. These applications on 'AAB Preferred' topics were funded at lower rates, but peer review outcomes were similar. The lower rate of funding for these topics was primarily due to their assignment to ICs with lower award rates, not to peer-reviewer preferences.

SUBMITTER: Lauer MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8087446 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health.

Lauer Michael S MS Doyle Jamie J Wang Joy J Roychowdhury Deepshikha D

eLife 20210413

A previous report found an association of topic choice with race-based funding disparities among R01 applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') between 2011 and 2015. Applications submitted by African American or Black ('AAB') Principal Investigators ('PIs') skewed toward a small number of topics that were less likely to be funded (or 'awarded'). It was suggested that lower award rates may be related to topic-related biases of peer reviewers. However, the report did not ...[more]

PMID: 33847562

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceEarly-stage and established investigators compete for a limited supply of funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Regardless of their previous funding success, many principal investigators (PIs) encounter a funding gap in which they no longer receive ongoing funding from the NIH.ObjectiveTo determine incidence rates of PI-level funding gaps, the mean funding gap length, and whether these 2 metrics are associated with previous funding success.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was conducted using data from NIH RePORTER. Historical datafiles for fiscal year (FY) 2011 to FY 2021 were aggregated to generate 2 master datafiles for this period: all NIH awards and only R01 awards. PIs with no funding in FY 2011 or FY 2021 were removed. PIs were sorted by FY 2011 total funding amounts and grouped by quarter of amount.ResultsA total of 39 944 unique researchers were awarded 220 131 NIH awards, of which 103 753 were R01 awards. For all NIH awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (from 27% to 75%), percentage of these gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (from 56% to 68%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.2 years to 3.1 years). For only R01 awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (50% to 74%), percentage of gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (59% to 71%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.4 years to 3.1 years).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of NIH-funded investigators, PIs with higher NIH funding were less likely to experience a funding gap. Additionally, when these PIs encountered a funding gap, this period without funding was shorter; however, among all PIs, funding gaps typically lasted 2 to 3 years. These associations were found inclusive of all NIH awards and when analysis was limited to only R01 awards. These findings may be useful to PIs and academic institutions as they prepare, structure, and project research resource allocations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although women at all career stages are more likely to leave academia than men, early-career women are a particularly high-risk group. Research supports that women are less likely than men to receive research funding; however, whether funding success rates vary based on research content is unknown. We addressed gender differences in funding success rates for applications directed to one or more of 13 institutes, representing research communities, over a 15-year period. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We retrospectively reviewed 55,700 grant and 4,087 personnel award applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We analyzed application success rates according to gender and the primary institute selected by applicants, pooled gender differences in success rates using random effects models, and fitted Poisson regression models to assess the effects of gender, time, and institute. We noted variable success rates among grant applications directed to selected institutes and declining success rates over time. Women submitted 31.1% and 44.7% of grant and personnel award applications, respectively. In the pooled estimate, women had significantly lower grant success (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.94; p < 0.001; absolute difference 3.2%) compared with men, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 58%). Compared with men, women who directed grants to the Institutes of Cancer Research (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.96), Circulatory and Respiratory Health (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84), Health Services and Policy Research (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), and Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93) were significantly less likely to be funded, and those who directed grants to the Institute of Aboriginal People's Health (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.0-2.7) were more likely to be funded. Overall, women also had significantly lower personnel award success (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86; p < 0.001; absolute difference 6.6%). Regression modelling identified that the effect of gender on grant success rates differed by institute and not time. Study limitations include use of institutes as a surrogate identifier, variability in designation of primary institute, and lack of access to metrics reflecting applicants, coapplicants, peer reviewers, and the peer-review process. CONCLUSIONS:Gender disparity existed overall in grant and personnel award success rates, especially for grants directed to selected research communities. Funding agencies should monitor for gender differences in grant success rates overall and by research content.

Dataset Information

Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health.

Publications

Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets