scholarly journals Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0257559
Author(s):  
Jamie Mihoko Doyle ◽  
Michael T. Baiocchi ◽  
Michaela Kiernan

Background Early career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group’s recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission. Methods and findings First-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000–2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively. First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications—for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82–3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22–2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications. Conclusions Encouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2–4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Hannah Ditchfield ◽  
Shuhan Chen

The first issue of for(e)dialogue is composed of a collection of papers given at the New Directions in Media Research (NDiMR) postgraduate conference in June 2015 at the University of Leicester. NDiMR is a one-day postgraduate focused conference organised by PhD students from the Department of Media and Communication. This conference has a similar aim and purpose of this journal as a whole which is to provide postgraduate students, PhD students and early career researchers with a platform and opportunity to develop and share their research and critically contribute to discussions of theory and methodology on a variety of Media and Communication issues. The NDiMR conference has been held annually since 2012, each year growing in size and attracting more delegates and presenters from across the world. However, this is the first time that some of the events’ presentation papers have been collected for a published conference proceedings.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raqib Chowdhury

Written primarily for new or early-career researchers and postgraduate students, this paper problematises some of the foundational concepts any beginning researcher will come across when conducting research for the first time. Understanding the oft-confused, abstract, yet important notions of ontology, epistemology and paradigms can be a daunting obstacle in the experience of a new researcher, yet there are nearly no ways of sidelining these if we were to meaningfully plan, construct and execute our research. Through familiar examples, this article engages in discussing the research approach and design and how these are grounded in the ways a researcher thinks about and understands the world - in other words, how their ontological and epistemological positions determine the methodological choices they make. As well as problematising these concepts, the article also compares the qualitative and quantitative approaches, and critically considers how, in some ways, qualitative studies can yield richer results in the social science disciplines, including in Education.


2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (02) ◽  
pp. 406-409
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Mallinson

ABSTRACTExperimentation has taken on a new life in political science. As the use of experimental methods proliferates, it is important for researchers to share their experiences and best practices, particularly with early-career researchers. This article provides reflections from practical experience in the laboratory, particularly geared toward graduate students and early-career researchers who are conducting their first laboratory experiment. These lessons do not apply only to first-time experimenters. Experiences are presented regarding time management, using confederates and deception, incentivizing participation, and keeping a laboratory notebook. Finally, early-career researchers are encouraged to “go for it” if the methods are appropriate to their research question.


2021 ◽  
Vol 220 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melina Casadio ◽  
Dan Simon

JCB asks early career researchers to share their experience interviewing for academic faculty positions and becoming independent PIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Nature ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 580 (7802) ◽  
pp. 185-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arild Husby ◽  
Gemma Modinos

2019 ◽  
pp. 25-25
Author(s):  
Katie Hesketh ◽  
Mark Viggars

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Merritt ◽  
H. Jack ◽  
W. Mangezi ◽  
D. Chibanda ◽  
M. Abas

Background. Capacity building is essential in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to address the gap in skills to conduct and implement research. Capacity building must not only include scientific and technical knowledge, but also broader competencies, such as writing, disseminating research and achieving work–life balance. These skills are thought to promote long-term career success for researchers in high-income countries (HICs) but the availability of such training is limited in LMICs. Methods. This paper presents the contextualisation and implementation of the Academic Competencies Series (ACES). ACES is an early-career researcher development programme adapted from a UK university. Through consultation between HIC and LMIC partners, an innovative series of 10 workshops was designed covering themes of self-development, engagement and writing skills. ACES formed part of the African Mental Health Research Initiative (AMARI), a multi-national LMIC-led consortium to recruit, train, support and network early-career mental health researchers from four sub-Saharan African countries. Results. Of the 10 ACES modules, three were HIC-LMIC co-led, four led by HIC facilitators with LMIC training experience and three led by external consultants from HICs. Six workshops were delivered face to face and four by webinar. Course attendance was over 90% and the delivery cost was approximately US$4500 per researcher trained. Challenges of adaptation, attendance and technical issues are described for the first round of workshops. Conclusions. This paper indicates that a skills development series for early-career researchers can be contextualised and implemented in LMIC settings, and is feasible for co-delivery with local partners at relatively low cost.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document