Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lauer MS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8087446 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Concerns about systemic racism at academic and research institutions have increased over the past decade. Here, we investigate data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of research in the United States, and find evidence for pervasive racial disparities. In particular, white principal investigators (PIs) are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs. Funding rates for white PIs have also been increasing relative to annual overall rates with time. Moreover, disparities occur across all disciplinary directorates within the NSF and are greater for research proposals. The distributions of average external review scores also exhibit systematic offsets based on PI race. Similar patterns have been described in other research funding bodies, suggesting that racial disparities are widespread. The prevalence and persistence of these racial disparities in funding have cascading impacts that perpetuate a cumulative advantage to white PIs across all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
| S-EPMC9708090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Understanding the factors associated with successful funding outcomes of research project grant (R01) applications is critical for the biomedical research community. R01 applications are evaluated through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system, where peer reviewers are asked to evaluate and assign scores to five research criteria when assessing an application's scientific and technical merit. This study examined the relationship of the five research criterion scores to the Overall Impact score and the likelihood of being funded for over 123,700 competing R01 applications for fiscal years 2010 through 2013. The relationships of other application and applicant characteristics, including demographics, to scoring and funding outcomes were studied as well. The analyses showed that the Approach and, to a lesser extent, the Significance criterion scores were the main predictors of an R01 application's Overall Impact score and its likelihood of being funded. Applicants might consider these findings when submitting future R01 applications to NIH.
| S-EPMC4889138 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6793847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ability of the United States to most efficiently make breakthroughs on the biology, diagnosis and treatment of human diseases requires that physicians and scientists in each state have equal access to federal research grants and grant dollars. However, despite legislative and administrative efforts to ensure equal access, the majority of funding for biomedical research is concentrated in a minority of states. To gain insight into the causes of such disparity, funding metrics were examined for all NIH research project grants (RPGs) from 2004 to 2013. State-by-state differences in per application success rates, per investigator funding rates, and average award size each contributed significantly to vast disparities (greater than 100-fold range) in per capita RPG funding to individual states. To the extent tested, there was no significant association overall between scientific productivity and per capita funding, suggesting that the unbalanced allocation of funding is unrelated to the quality of scientists in each state. These findings reveal key sources of bias in, and new insight into the accuracy of, the funding process. They also support evidence-based recommendations for how the NIH could better utilize the scientific talent and capacity that is present throughout the United States.
| S-EPMC4830231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. This funding is largely effected through a competitive grants process. Each year the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) at NIH manages the evaluation, by peer review, of more than 55,000 grant applications. A relevant management question is how this scientific evaluation system, supported by finite resources, could be continuously evaluated and improved for maximal benefit to the scientific community and the taxpaying public. Towards this purpose, we have created the first system-level description of peer review at CSR by applying text analysis, bibliometric, and graph visualization techniques to administrative records. We identify otherwise latent relationships across scientific clusters, which in turn suggest opportunities for structural reorganization of the system based on expert evaluation. Such studies support the creation of monitoring tools and provide transparency and knowledge to stakeholders.
| S-EPMC4132088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:The study objective was to describe and compare changes in newly funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related awards between fiscal year (FY) 2006 and FY2016. DESIGN:Secondary analysis of NIH data. SETTING:National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was used. SUBJECTS:National Institutes of Health tobacco-related awards newly funded during FY2006 and FY2016. MEASURES:Search terms included tobacco, smoking, nicotine, secondhand smoke, and e-cigarettes. Grants and funding amounts were retrieved. ANALYSIS:We calculated frequency distributions to determine the number and percentage of total NIH grants funded overall and by specific institute, and inflation-adjusted total and median funding amounts. We computed percentage differences in number of new grants, funding amounts, and percentage of funding allocated overall, and by institute. RESULTS:There was a 187% increase in the percentage of total NIH funding allocated to new tobacco-related awards from 0.09% in FY2006 to 0.25% in FY2016. Total number of awards increased by 67% in FY2016 (n = 144; $56 015 931) compared to FY2006 (n = 86; $22 076 987), and there was a 154% increase in inflation-adjusted total funding for tobacco control. The top funding institutes were National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Cancer Institute; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was third in FY2006; and National, Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in FY2016. Research grants were the most frequently funded. Smoking cessation was a common topic area and increased by 64%. CONCLUSION:NIH funding is critical for advancing the science of nicotine and tobacco research.
| S-EPMC6026566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for cardiac surgeons, hypothesizing they are at a disadvantage in obtaining funding owing to intensive clinical demands.MethodsCardiac surgeons (adult/congenital) currently at the top 141 NIH-funded institutions were identified using institutional websites. The NIH funding history for each cardiac surgeon was queried using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER). Total grant funding, publications, and type was collected. Academic rank, secondary degrees, and fellowship information was collected from faculty pages. Grant productivity was calculated using a validated grant impact metric.ResultsA total of 818 academic cardiac surgeons were identified, of whom 144 obtained 293 NIH grants totaling $458 million and resulting in 6694 publications. We identified strong associations between an institution's overall NIH funding rank and the number of cardiac surgeons, NIH grants to cardiac surgeons, and amount of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons (P < .0001 for all). The majority of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons is concentrated in the top quartile of institutions. Cardiac surgeons had a high conversion rates from K awards (mentored development awards) to R01s (6 of 14; 42.9%). Finally, we demonstrate that the rate of all NIH grants awarded to cardiac surgeons has increased, driven primarily by P and U (collaborative project) grants.ConclusionsNIH-funded cardiac surgical research has had a significant impact over the last 3 decades. Aspiring cardiac surgeon-scientists may be more successful at top quartile institutions owing to better infrastructure and mentorship.
| S-EPMC7546359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrevious studies have examined the impact of Clinical and Translational Science Awards programs on other outcomes, but not on grant seeking. The authors examined the effects on grant seeking of the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR), a Clinical and Translational Science Awards institute at the University of Michigan.MethodsWe assessed over 63,000 grant proposals submitted at the University of Michigan in the years 2002-2012 using data from the university and MICHR's Tracking Metrics and Reporting System. We used a retrospective, observational study of the dynamics of grant-seeking success and award funding. Heckman selection models were run to assess MICHR's relationship with a proposal's success (selection), and subsequently the award's size (outcome). Models were run for all proposals and for clinical and translational research (CTR) proposals alone. Other covariates included proposal classification, type of grant award, academic unit, and year.ResultsMICHR had a positive and statistically significant relationship with success for both proposal types. For all grants, MICHR was associated with a 29.6% increase in award size. For CTR grants, MICHR had a statistically nonsignificant relationship with award size.ConclusionsMICHR's infrastructure, created to enable and enhance CTR, has also created positive spillovers for a broader spectrum of research and grant seeking.
| S-EPMC5444804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvaluating the National Institute's Health's (NIH's) response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic via grants and clinical trials is crucial to determining the impact they had on aiding US citizens. We determined how the NIH's funding for COVID-19 research was disbursed and used by various institutions across the United States.MethodsWe queried NIH RePORTER and isolated COVID-19-related grants from January 2020 to December 2021. We analyzed grant type, geographical location, and awardee institution. Manuscripts published from these grants were quantitatively analyzed. COVID-19 clinical trials were mapped and distances from counties to clinical trial sites were calculated using ArcGis.ResultsA total of 2401 COVID-19 NIH grants resulted in 14 654 manuscripts from $4.2 billion and generated more than 150 000 citations. R01s make up 32% of grants (763/2401) and 8% of funding ($329 million). UM1 grants account for the majority of funding (30.8%; $1.3 Billion). Five states received 50.6% of funding: North Carolina, Washington, New York, California, and Massachusetts. Finally, of the 1806 clinical trials across 1266 sites in the United States, the majority were in metropolitan areas in close proximity to areas of high COVID-19 disease burden.Conclusions and relevanceEvaluating the outcome of the NIH's response to the COVID-19 pandemic is of interest to the general public. The present study finds that the NIH disbursed more than $4 billion in funding to large consortiums and clinical trials to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Approximately 8% of funding was used for R01 grants. Clinical trial sites were generally located in areas of high COVID-19 burden.
| S-EPMC10965119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study is to compare the compositions of federally funded surgical research between 2003 and 2013, and to assess differences in funding trends between surgery and other medical specialties.The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was queried for grants within core surgical disciplines during 2003 and 2013. Funding was categorized by award type, methodology, and discipline. Application success rates for surgery and 5 nonsurgical departments were trended over time.Inflation-adjusted NIH funding for surgical research decreased 19% from $270 M in 2003 to $219 M in 2013, with a shift from R-awards to U-awards. Proportional funding to outcomes research almost tripled, while translational research diminished. Nonsurgical departments have increased NIH application volume over the last 10 years; however, surgery's application volume has been stagnant. To preserve surgery's role in innovative research, new efforts are needed to incentivize an increase in application volume.
| S-EPMC4446185 | biostudies-literature