scholarly journals Navigating the Road to Success: Guidelines for Preparing Competitive Grant Proposals

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn L. Langille ◽  
Theresa Mackenzie
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The Road ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Research Grant

Purpose - Difficulty in securing research funding has been cited as one barrier to the involvement of more librarians and information professionals in conducting original research. This article seeks to support the work of librarians who wish to secure research funding by describing some key approaches to the creation of successful grant applications. Approach - The authors draw on more than 15 years experience in supporting the development of successful research grant proposals. Twelve grant-writing best practices or ‘key approaches’ are described, and a planning timeline is suggested. Conclusions - Use of these best practices can assist researchers in creating successful research grant proposals that will also help streamline the research process once it is underway. It is important to recognize the competitive nature of research grant competitions, to obtain feedback from an internal review panel, and to use feedback from funding agencies to strengthen future grant applications.

scholarly journals Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Guthrie ◽  
Daniela Rodriguez Rincon ◽  
Gordon McInroy ◽  
Becky Ioppolo ◽  
Salil Gunashekar
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Funding Allocation ◽  
Complex Process ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Funding Scheme ◽  
Measuring Bias

Background: Grant funding allocation is a complex process that in most cases relies on peer review. A recent study identified a number of challenges associated with the use of peer review in the evaluation of grant proposals. Three important issues identified were bias, burden, and conservatism, and the work concluded that further experimentation and measurement is needed to assess the performance of funding processes. Methods: We have conducted a review of international practice in the evaluation and improvement of grant funding processes in relation to bias, burden and conservatism, based on a rapid evidence assessment and interviews with research funding agencies. Results: The evidence gathered suggests that efforts so far to measure these characteristics systematically by funders have been limited. However, there are some examples of measures and approaches which could be developed and more widely applied. Conclusions: The majority of the literature focuses primarily on the application and assessment process, whereas burden, bias and conservatism can emerge as challenges at many wider stages in the development and implementation of a grant funding scheme. In response to this we set out a wider conceptualisation of the ways in which this could emerge across the funding process.

scholarly journals The Keys to Preparing Successful Research Grant Proposals

2001 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 605-612
Author(s):  
Mary A. Marchant
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Department Of Agriculture ◽  
Grant Programs ◽  
Research Initiative ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Research Grant

AbstractThis article seeks to demystify the competitive grant recommendation process of scientific peer review panels. The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service (USDA-CSREES) serves as the focus of this article. This article provides a brief background on the NRICGP and discusses the application process, the scientific peer review process, guidelines for grant writing, and ways to interpret reviewer comments if a proposal is not funded. The essentials of good grant writing discussed in this article are transferable to other USDA competitive grant programs.

scholarly journals The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A Gallo ◽  
Lisa A Thompson ◽  
Karen B Schmaling ◽  
Scott R Glisson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Integral Role ◽  
Comprehensive Survey ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Grant Proposals

AbstractScientific peer reviewers play an integral role in the grant selection process, yet very little has been reported on the levels of participation or the motivations of scientists to take part in peer review. AIBS developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined the motivations and levels of participation of grant reviewers. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 scientists in AIBS’s proprietary database. Of the 874 respondents, 76% indicated they had reviewed grant applications in the last 3 years; however, the number of reviews was unevenly distributed across this sample. Higher review loads were associated with respondents who had submitted more grant proposals over this time period, some of whom were likely to be study section members for large funding agencies. The most prevalent reason to participate in a review was to give back to the scientific community (especially among frequent grant submitters) and the most common reason to decline an invitation to review was lack of time. Interestingly, few suggested that expectation from the funding agency was a motivation to review. Most felt that review participation positively influenced their careers through improving grantsmanship and exposure to new scientific ideas. Of those who reviewed, respondents reported dedicating 2-5% of their total annual work time to grant review and, based on their self-reported maximum review loads, it is estimated they are participating at 56%-89% of their capacity, which may have important implications regarding the sustainability of the system. Overall, it is clear that participation in peer review is uneven and in some cases near capacity, and more needs to be done to create new motivations and incentives to increase the future pool of reviewers.

scholarly journals Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Bénichou ◽  
Isabelle Gérard ◽  
Éric Laureys ◽  
Michelle Price
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
End User ◽  
Online Publishing

In order to consider the effects of online publishing on the career of researchers, as well as to encourage both its recognition and its improved positioning within the field and beyond, the CETAF Membership organized two workshops during which specific questions about scientific publishing in taxonomy were addressed: authorship citation and Open Access. The present opinion paper is the result of those workshops held on 19 October 2016 in Madrid and on 4 October 2017 in Heraklion. The discussions were aimed at reconciling the requirements of the relevant nomenclatural codes with recommendations for best practices that are adapted to the evolving landscape of e-publishing. By evaluating the different policies of a range of journals regarding authorship citation, we were able to recognise the conflicting and incoherent practices related to the citation of taxon authorships; an issue that is important to clarify for scientific (explicit source), practical (findability of source) and reputational (citation index) reasons. A collective policy on authorship citation also fits into the wider challenge faced by researchers and institutions, whereby interoperability and traceability become key priorities, both for facilitating access to scientific resources and for generating metrics that accurately represent the activities and output of the community. Publications resulting from publicly-funded research should be considered as an essential part of the research process and there has been a strong move towards Open Access, which increases visibility, citability, innovation and impact. Diverse models of Open Access have appeared in scientific publishing but while they each promote free access to the end user, they are not always equitable for the authors and funders of the original research. Herein we formulate recommendations for the relevant research communities and outline the advantages behind adopting a collective strategy towards the issues of authorship citation and Open Access.

scholarly journals Strategies for writing a successful National Institutes of Health grant proposal for the early-career neurointerventionalist

2020 ◽  
pp. neurintsurg-2020-016964
Author(s):  
Peter Kan ◽  
Maxim Mokin ◽  
William J Mack ◽  
Robert M Starke ◽  
Kevin N Sheth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cerebrovascular Disease ◽  
Grant Proposal ◽  
Early Career ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Detailed Knowledge ◽  
Grant Application ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Research Grant

ObjectiveThe goal of this article is to provide a succinct review of the key components of a NIH grant application and the NIH reviewprocess for the early career neurointerventionalist.MethodsThe authors reviewed NIH rules and regulations and also reflected on their own collective experiencein writing NIH grant proposals in the area of cerebrovascular disease andneurointerventional surgery.ResultsKey components of theresearch strategy include specific aims, significance, innovation and approach.The specific aims page is the most important page of the application and should be written first. The NIH review isbased on these key components along with an assessment of the appropriatenessof the investigators and environment for the research.ConclusionDetailed knowledge ofthe key components of the research grant is critical to a successful application.The information in the article may aid in the grant writing for early careerneurointerventionalists.

scholarly journals Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of panel discussion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Gallo ◽  
Karen B. Schmaling ◽  
Lisa A. Thompson ◽  
Scott R. Glisson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Panel Discussion ◽  
Limited Participation ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Potential Sources ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Proposal Review ◽  
Method Analysis ◽  
Research Grant

AbstractBackgroundFunding agencies have long used panel discussion in the peer review of research grant proposals as a way to utilize a set of expertise and perspectives in making funding decisions. Little research has examined the quality of panel discussions and how effectively they are facilitated.MethodsHere we present a mixed-method analysis of data from a survey of reviewers focused on their perceptions of the quality and facilitation of panel discussion from their last peer review experience.ResultsReviewers indicated that panel discussions were viewed favorably in terms of participation, clarifying differing opinions, informing unassigned reviewers, and chair facilitation. However, some reviewers mentioned issues with panel discussions, including an uneven focus, limited participation from unassigned reviewers, and short discussion times. Most reviewers felt the discussions affected the review outcome, helped in choosing the best science, and were generally fair and balanced. However, those who felt the discussion did not affect the outcome were also more likely to evaluate panel communication negatively, and several reviewers mentioned potential sources of bias related to the discussion. While respondents strongly acknowledged the importance of the chair in ensuring appropriate facilitation of the discussion to influence scoring and to limit the influence of potential sources of bias from the discussion on scoring, nearly a third of respondents did not find the chair of their most recent panel to have performed these roles effectively.ConclusionsIt is likely that improving chair training in the management of discussion as well as creating review procedures that are informed by the science of leadership and team communication would improve review processes and proposal review reliability.

scholarly journals The National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot Public Access and Data Sharing Policy—Initial assessment and implications

Data & Policy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tammy M. Frisby ◽  
Jorge L. Contreras
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Data Types ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Wide Range

Abstract Since 2013, federal research-funding agencies have been required to develop and implement broad data sharing policies. Yet agencies today continue to grapple with the mechanisms necessary to enable the sharing of a wide range of data types, from genomic and other -omics data to clinical and pharmacological data to survey and qualitative data. In 2016, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the ambitious $1.8 billion Cancer Moonshot Program, which included a new Public Access and Data Sharing (PADS) Policy applicable to funding applications submitted on or after October 1, 2017. The PADS Policy encourages the immediate public release of published research results and data and requires all Cancer Moonshot grant applicants to submit a PADS plan describing how they will meet these goals. We reviewed the PADS plans submitted with approximately half of all funded Cancer Moonshot grant applications in fiscal year 2018, and found that a majority did not address one or more elements required by the PADS Policy. Many such plans made no reference to the PADS Policy at all, and several referenced obsolete or outdated National Institutes of Health (NIH) policies instead. We believe that these omissions arose from a combination of insufficient education and outreach by NCI concerning its PADS Policy, both to potential grant applicants and among NCI’s program staff and external grant reviewers. We recommend that other research funding agencies heed these findings as they develop and roll out new data sharing policies.

scholarly journals National Institutes of Health grant opportunities for the neurointerventionalist: preparation and choosing the right mechanism

2020 ◽  
pp. neurintsurg-2020-016743
Author(s):  
Peter Kan ◽  
Michael R Levitt ◽  
William J Mack ◽  
Robert M Starke ◽  
Kevin N Sheth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cerebrovascular Disease ◽  
Early Career ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Grant Application ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Preparation Stage ◽  
Collective Experience ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
The Right

ObjectiveThe goal of this article is to provide recommendations for the early career neurointerventionalist in writing a successful grant application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and similar funding agencies.MethodsThe authors reviewed NIH rules and regulations and also reflected on their own collective experience in writing NIH grant proposals in the area of cerebrovascular disease and neurointerventional surgery.ResultsA strong proposal should address an important scientific problem where there is a gap in knowledge. The solution offered needs to be innovative but at the same time based on a strong scientific premise. The proposed research must be feasible to implement and investigate in the researcher’s environment.ConclusionSuccessful grant writing is critical in funding and enhancing research. The information in the article may aid in the preparation stage of grant writing for early career neurointerventionalists.

scholarly journals Cross-Center Virtual Education Fellowship Program for Early-Career Researchers in Atrial Fibrillation

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tinuola B. Ajayi ◽  
Christy D. Remein ◽  
Randall S. Stafford ◽  
Angela Fagerlin ◽  
Mina K. Chung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Population Health ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Career Stage ◽  
Fellowship Program ◽  
Pedagogical Model ◽  
Grant Applications

Background: It is estimated that over 46 million individuals have atrial fibrillation (AF) worldwide, and the incidence and prevalence of AF are increasing globally. There is an urgent need to accelerate the academic development of scientists possessing the skills to conduct innovative, collaborative AF research. Methods: We designed and implemented a virtual AF Strategically Focused Research Network Cross-Center Fellowship program to enhance the competencies of early-stage AF basic, clinical, and population health researchers through experiential education and mentorship. The pedagogical model involves significant cross-center collaboration to produce a curriculum focused on enhancing AF scientific competencies, fostering career/professional development, and cultivating grant writing skills. Outcomes for success involve clear expectations for fellows to produce manuscripts, presentations, and—for those at the appropriate career stage–grant applications. We evaluated the effectiveness of the fellowship model via mixed methods formative and summative surveys. Results: In 2 years of the fellowship, fellows generally achieved the productivity metrics sought by our pedagogical model, with outcomes for the 12 fellows including 50 AF-related manuscripts, 7 publications, 28 presentations, and 3 grant awards applications. Participant evaluations reported that the fellowship effectively met its educational objectives. All fellows reported medium to high satisfaction with the overall fellowship, webinar content and facilitation, staff communication and support, and program organization. Conclusions: The fellowship model represents an innovative educational strategy by providing a virtual AF training and mentoring curriculum for early-career basic, clinical, and population health scientists working across multiple institutions, which is particularly valuable in the pandemic era.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document