Dataset Information

Impact of an institutional grant award on early career investigator applicants and peer reviewers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Obtaining research funding support is integral to a successful career in science. Training and practice in grant writing, as well as engagement in peer review of grant applications may help lead to successful research funding. However, there is little evidence on the impact of institutional programs on the career development of early career investigators (ECIs).

Objectives

Understand the impact of participation in an institutional research award program on the career development of ECIs.

Methods

The Cardiovascular Research Institute of Vermont established an Early Career Research (ECR) award program in 2018. ECIs who participated as applicants or reviewers in the first 3 years of the program (2018-2020) were surveyed to understand the impact of the ECR award program on their grant writing and professional development.

Results

Ninety-four percent of 17 applicants and 90% of 19 reviewers completed the survey. Ninety-two percent of funded and 75% of unfunded applicants, and 87% of reviewers reported that the program was beneficial to their professional development. Similarly, 85% of funded applicants, 75% of unfunded applicants, and 80% of reviewers reported improvement in their grant-writing skills. All respondents reported they would recommend the ECR award program to their peers.

Conclusions

This single-institution ECR award program had a positive impact on ECI's professional development and grant-writing skills and may lead to further extramural funding opportunities.

SUBMITTER: Mughal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8268663 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications highlighted that interventions were limited and have little impact. This study aims to compare the accuracy of early career peer reviewers who use an innovative online tool to the usual peer reviewer process in evaluating the completeness of reporting and switched primary outcomes in completed reports.This is a cross-sectional study of individual two-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the BioMed Central series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open and Annals of Emergency Medicine and indexed with the publication type 'Randomised Controlled Trial'. First, we will develop an online tool and training module based (a) on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist and the Explanation and Elaboration document that would be dedicated to junior peer reviewers for assessing the completeness of reporting of key items and (b) the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Outcome Monitoring Project process used to identify switched outcomes in completed reports of the primary results of RCTs when initially submitted. Then, we will compare the performance of early career peer reviewers who use the online tool to the usual peer review process in identifying inadequate reporting and switched outcomes in completed reports of RCTs at initial journal submission. The primary outcome will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript. The secondary outcomes will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript for the CONSORT items and the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio to detect the item as adequately reported and to identify a switch in outcomes. We aim to include 120 RCTs and 120 early career peer reviewers.The research protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the INSERM Institutional Review Board (21 January 2016). The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent.NCT03119376.

Project description:BackgroundThe peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9).ResultsThe mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal's usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88-1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82-89] versus 20% [16-24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44-77] versus 11% [3-26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57-65] versus 77% [74-81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67-86] versus 98% [92-100].ConclusionsTrained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting.Trial registrationClinical.Trials.gov NCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

Project description:ImportanceOphthalmology-residency selection committees require robust metrics to review applicants. Participation in research activities is a core component of the application process for its perceived association with future academic productivity.ObjectiveTo evaluate the correlation between the number of preresidency peer-reviewed publications (PPPs) and subsequent peer-reviewed publications or career choices of ophthalmology residency graduates.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, names of ophthalmology residency graduates were obtained. PubMed-indexed publication records were generated and publications were categorized as preresidency, intraresidency, and postresidency. First author and journal publications with an impact factor (IF) score of 3 or more were recorded. Current academic and community-based career statuses were designated. Names were obtained from cohort and alumni lists on residency program websites or by emailing program directors. Participants included US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited ophthalmology residency graduates from 2013 to 2016.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was association of PPPs with later publications, first authorship, and journal publications with an IF score of 3 or more. The secondary outcome measure was difference in characteristics associated with academic vs community-based ophthalmologist.ResultsA total of 964 ophthalmologists (52% of graduates) were studied and most (85.5%) had PubMed-indexed publications. First authorship (ρ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.74; P < .001) had a strong positive correlation with intraresidency publications, while journal publications with an IF score of 3 or more (ρ = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.51-0.60; P < .001) and PPPs (ρ = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.32-0.43; P < .001) had moderate and weak positive correlations, respectively. For postresidency publications, journal publications with an IF score of 3 or more (ρ = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.87; P < .001) had the strongest positive correlation followed by first authorship (ρ = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.79; P < .001) and PPPs (ρ = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.31; P < .001). Preresidency (t = 3.3; P = .001), intraresidency (t = 4.1; P < .001), postresidency (t = 7.5; P < .001), first author (t = 6.6; P < .001), and journal publications with an IF score of 3 or more (t = 5.9; P < .001) were greater for academic ophthalmologists compared with community-based ophthalmologists.Conclusions and relevancePreresidency publication history is at least weakly correlated with future publications or work in an academic setting among ophthalmologists. Multiple factors associated with academic productivity were evaluated; however, adjustment for multiple analyses was not done and further testing is required to prove whether these factors are predictive.