Australia's grant system wastes time

Herbert, Danielle L.; Barnett, Adrian; Graves, Nicholas

doi:10.1038/495314d

Cited by 28 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Australian researchers spend an enormous amount of time preparing grant proposals 12. We estimate that the 2012 NHMRC Project Grant scheme costs 550 working years of researchers' time, which is AU$66 million in terms of the estimated salary costs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo estimate the time spent by the researchers for preparing grant proposals, and to examine whether spending more time increase the chances of success.DesignObservational study.SettingThe National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia.ParticipantsResearchers who submitted one or more NHMRC Project Grant proposals in March 2012.Main outcome measuresTotal researcher time spent preparing proposals; funding success as predicted by the time spent.ResultsThe NHMRC received 3727 proposals of which 3570 were reviewed and 731 (21%) were funded. Among our 285 participants who submitted 632 proposals, 21% were successful. Preparing a new proposal took an average of 38 working days of researcher time and a resubmitted proposal took 28 working days, an overall average of 34 days per proposal. An estimated 550 working years of researchers' time (95% CI 513 to 589) was spent preparing the 3727 proposals, which translates into annual salary costs of AU$66 million. More time spent preparing a proposal did not increase the chances of success for the lead researcher (prevalence ratio (PR) of success for 10 day increase=0.91, 95% credible interval 0.78 to 1.04) or other researchers (PR=0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17).ConclusionsConsiderable time is spent preparing NHMRC Project Grant proposals. As success rates are historically 20–25%, much of this time has no immediate benefit to either the researcher or society, and there are large opportunity costs in lost research output. The application process could be shortened so that only information relevant for peer review, not administration, is collected. This would have little impact on the quality of peer review and the time saved could be reinvested into research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although considered the scientific gold standard (Jefferson 2006), grant peer review requires significant overhead costs (Southwick 2012; Roy 1985). Herbert et al (2013) estimate that Australian researchers alone spent five centuries worth of research time preparing proposals. Extrapolating for population size, the US grant review system may incur even greater overall overhead costs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a novel model of science funding that exploits the wisdom of the scientific crowd. Each researcher receives an equal, unconditional part of all available science funding on a yearly basis, but is required to individually donate to other scientists a given fraction of all they receive. Science funding thus moves from one scientist to the next in such a way that scientists who receive many donations must also redistribute the most. As the funding circulates through the scientific community it is mathematically expected to converge on a funding distribution favored by the entire scientific community. This is achieved without any proposal submissions or reviews. The model furthermore funds scientists instead of projects, reducing much of the overhead and bias of the present grant peer review system. Model validation using large-scale citation data and funding records over the past 20 years show that the proposed model could yield funding distributions that are similar to those of the NSF and NIH, and the model could potentially be more fair and more equitable. We discuss possible extensions of this approach as well as science policy implications.

show abstract

“…In 2012, Australian researchers spent an estimated 550 years preparing 3727 proposals (21% were funded) for the major National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funding scheme, at an estimated annual salary cost of $A66 million 6 7. These figures underestimate the total cost because they do not include administrative or technical support, peer review and the personal costs and impacts on family and relationships.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo examine the impact of applying for funding on personal workloads, stress and family relationships.DesignQualitative study of researchers preparing grant proposals.SettingWeb-based survey on applying for the annual National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant scheme.ParticipantsAustralian researchers (n=215).ResultsAlmost all agreed that preparing their proposals always took top priority over other work (97%) and personal (87%) commitments. Almost all researchers agreed that they became stressed by the workload (93%) and restricted their holidays during the grant writing season (88%). Most researchers agreed that they submitted proposals because chance is involved in being successful (75%), due to performance requirements at their institution (60%) and pressure from their colleagues to submit proposals (53%). Almost all researchers supported changes to the current processes to submit proposals (95%) and peer review (90%). Most researchers (59%) provided extensive comments on the impact of writing proposals on their work life and home life. Six major work life themes were: (1) top priority; (2) career development; (3) stress at work; (4) benefits at work; (5) time spent at work and (6) pressure from colleagues. Six major home life themes were: (1) restricting family holidays; (2) time spent on work at home; (3) impact on children; (4) stress at home; (5) impact on family and friends and (6) impact on partner. Additional impacts on the mental health and well-being of researchers were identified.ConclusionsThe process of preparing grant proposals for a single annual deadline is stressful, time consuming and conflicts with family responsibilities. The timing of the funding cycle could be shifted to minimise applicant burden, give Australian researchers more time to work on actual research and to be with their families.

show abstract

Australia's grant system wastes time

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers

On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers

An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About