Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 May 28;3(5):e002800.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800.

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

Danielle L Herbert  1 , Adrian G Barnett, Philip Clarke, Nicholas Graves
Affiliations

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

Danielle L Herbert et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the time spent by the researchers for preparing grant proposals, and to examine whether spending more time increase the chances of success.

Design: Observational study.

Setting: The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia.

Participants: Researchers who submitted one or more NHMRC Project Grant proposals in March 2012.

Main outcome measures: Total researcher time spent preparing proposals; funding success as predicted by the time spent.

Results: The 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).

Conclusions: Considerable 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.

Keywords: Evidence based medicine; Peer review; Research funding; Statistics & research methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Desired reliability of a hypothetical system (see box 1 for hypothetical question).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Hypothetical association between the information collected for peer review and the accuracy of awarding the best proposals. To draw this association, we assume that all proposals can be ranked (without ties) from the best to the worst.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. National Health and Medical Research Council Funding rate and funding by funding scheme. Canberra: NHMRC, 2012. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/outcomes-funding-rounds (accessed Nov 2012).
    1. Wilkinson E. Wellcome Trust to fund people not projects. Lancet 2010;375:185–6 - PubMed
    1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Research proposal funding rates 2011–2012. Swindon: EPSRC, 2012. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/funding/FundingRates1112.pdf (accessed Jan 2013).
    1. National Science Foundation Grant proposal guide. Arlington VA: NSF, 2011. I-3 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpgprint.pdf (accessed Nov 2012).
    1. Wood FQ, Meek VL, Harman G. The research grant application process. Learning from failure? Higher Educ 1992;24:1–23

LinkOut - more resources