The life course of Australian researchers : experiences of applying for research funding

The life course of Australian researchers includes regular funding applications, which incur large personal and time costs. We previously estimated that Australian researchers spent 550 years preparing 3,727 proposals for the 2012 NHMRC Project Grant funding round, at an estimated annual salary cost of AU$66 million. Despite the worldwide importance of funding rounds, there is little evidence on what researchers think of the application process. We conducted a web-based survey of Australian researchers (May–July 2013) asking about their experience with NHMRC Project Grants. Almost all researchers (n=224 at 31 May) supported changes to the application (96%) and peer-review (88%) processes; 73% supported the introduction of shorter initial Expressions of Interest; and half (50%) provided extensive comments on the NHMRC processes. Researchers agreed preparing their proposals always took top priority over other work (97%) and personal (87%) commitments. More than half (57%) provided extensive comments on the ongoing personal impact of concurrent grant-writing and holiday seasons on family, children and other relationships. Researchers with experience on Grant Review Panels (34%) or as External Reviewers (78%) reported many sections of the proposals were rarely or never read, which suggests these sections could be cut with no impact on the quality of peer review. Our findings provide evidence on the experience of Australian researchers as applicants. The process of preparing, submitting and reviewing proposals could be streamlined to minimise the burden on applicants and peer reviewers, giving Australian researchers more time to work on actual research and be with their families.

Multimedia : a necessary step in the evolution of research funding applications

Multimedia communication capabilities are rapidly expanding, and visual information is easily shared electronically, yet funding bodies still rely on paper grant proposal submissions. Incorporating modern technologies will streamline the granting process by increasing the fidelity of grant communication, improving the efficiency of review, and reducing the cost of the process.

Streamlined research funding using short proposals and accelerated peer review : an observational study

Background Despite the widely recognised importance of sustainable health care systems, health services research remains generally underfunded in Australia. The Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI) is funding health services research in the state of Queensland. AusHSI has developed a streamlined protocol for applying and awarding funding using a short proposal and accelerated peer review. Method An observational study of proposals for four health services research funding rounds from May 2012 to November 2013. A short proposal of less than 1,200 words was submitted using a secure web-based portal. The primary outcome measures are: time spent preparing proposals; a simplified scoring of grant proposals (reject, revise or accept for interview) by a scientific review committee; and progressing from submission to funding outcomes within eight weeks. Proposals outside of health services research were deemed ineligible. Results There were 228 eligible proposals across 4 funding rounds: from 29% to 79% were shortlisted and 9% to 32% were accepted for interview. Success rates increased from 6% (in 2012) to 16% (in 2013) of eligible proposals. Applicants were notified of the outcomes within two weeks from the interview; which was a maximum of eight weeks after the submission deadline. Applicants spent 7 days on average preparing their proposal. Applicants with a ranking of reject or revise received written feedback and suggested improvements for their proposals, and resubmissions composed one third of the 2013 rounds. Conclusions The AusHSI funding scheme is a streamlined application process that has simplified the process of allocating health services research funding for both applicants and peer reviewers. The AusHSI process has minimised the time from submission to notification of funding outcomes.

What is the impact of research funding on research productivity?

A research protocol for our prospective study of research funding. How much research funding improves research productivity is a question that has relevance for all funding agencies and governments around the world. Previous studies have used observational data that compares productivity between winners of different amounts of funding, but researchers who win lots of funding are usually very different from those who win little or no funding. This difference creates potentially serious confounding which biases any estimate of the effect of funding based on observational data that simply compares research output for those who did and did not win funding. This means we do not currently know the return on investment for our research dollars, of which billions are invested around the world every year. By using a study design that incorporates randomisation this will be the world’s first unbiased study of the impact of researcher funding.

Addressing migration-related social and health inequalities in Australia: call for research funding priorities to recognise the needs of migrant populations

Objective Migrants constitute 26% of the total Australian population and, although disproportionately affected by chronic diseases, they are under-represented in health research. The aim of the present study was to describe trends in Australian Research Council (ARC)- and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)-funded initiatives from 2002 to 2011 with a key focus on migration-related research funding.Methods Data on all NHMRC- and ARC-funded initiatives between 2002 and 2011 were collected from the research funding statistics and national competitive grants program data systems, respectively. The research funding expenditures within these two schemes were categorised into two major groups: (1) people focused (migrant-related and mainstream-related); and (2) basic science focused. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the data and report the trends in NHMRC and ARC funding over the 10-year period.Results Over 10 years, the ARC funded 15 354 initiatives worth A$5.5 billion, with 897 (5.8%) people-focused projects funded, worth A$254.4 million. Migrant-related research constituted 7.8% of all people-focused research. The NHMRC funded 12 399 initiatives worth A$5.6 billion, with 447 (3.6%) people-focused projects funded, worth A$207.2 million. Migrant-related research accounted for 6.2% of all people-focused initiatives.Conclusions Although migrant groups are disproportionately affected by social and health inequalities, the findings of the present study show that migrant-related research is inadequately funded compared with mainstream-related research. Unless equitable research funding is achieved, it will be impossible to build a strong evidence base for planning effective measures to reduce these inequalities among migrants.What is known about the topic? Immigration is on the rise in most developing countries, including Australia, and most migrants come from low- and middle-income countries. In Australia, migrants constitute 26% of the total Australian population and include refugee and asylum seeker population groups. Migrants are disproportionately affected by disease, yet they have been found to be under-represented in health research and public health interventions.What does this paper add? This paper highlights the disproportions in research funding for research among migrants. Despite migrants being disproportionately affected by disease burden, research into their health conditions and risk factors is grossly underfunded compared with the mainstream population.What are the implications for practitioners? Migrants represent a significant proportion of the Australian population and hence are capable of incurring high costs to the Australian health system. There are two major implications for practitioners. First, the migrant population is constantly growing, therefore integrating the needs of migrants into the development of health policy is important in ensuring equity across health service delivery and utilisation in Australia. Second, the health needs of migrants will only be uncovered when a clear picture of their true health status and other determinants of health, such as psychological, economic, social and cultural, are identified through empirical research studies. Unless equitable research funding is achieved, it will be impossible to build a strong evidence base for planning effective measures to reduce health and social inequalities among migrant communities.

The Research Funding Service: a model for expanded library services

Traditionally, libraries have provided a modest amount of information about grants and funding opportunities to researchers in need of research funding. Ten years ago, the University of Washington (UW) Health Sciences Libraries and Information Center joined in a cooperative effort with the School of Medicine to develop a complete, library-based grant and funding service for health sciences researchers called the Research Funding Service. The library provided space, access to the library collection, equipment, and electronic resources, and the School of Medicine funded staff and operations. The range of services now includes individual consultation appointments, an extensive Web site, classes on funding database searching and writing grant applications, a discussion series that frequently hosts guest speakers, a monthly newsletter with funding opportunities of interest to the six health sciences schools, extensive files on funding sources, and referral services.