Impact of an institutional grant award on early career investigator applicants and peer reviewers

Abstract

Background: Obtaining research funding support is integral to a successful career in science. Training and practice in grant writing, as well as engagement in peer review of grant applications may help lead to successful research funding. However, there is little evidence on the impact of institutional programs on the career development of early career investigators (ECIs).

Objectives: Understand the impact of participation in an institutional research award program on the career development of ECIs.

Methods: The Cardiovascular Research Institute of Vermont established an Early Career Research (ECR) award program in 2018. ECIs who participated as applicants or reviewers in the first 3 years of the program (2018-2020) were surveyed to understand the impact of the ECR award program on their grant writing and professional development.

Results: Ninety-four percent of 17 applicants and 90% of 19 reviewers completed the survey. Ninety-two percent of funded and 75% of unfunded applicants, and 87% of reviewers reported that the program was beneficial to their professional development. Similarly, 85% of funded applicants, 75% of unfunded applicants, and 80% of reviewers reported improvement in their grant-writing skills. All respondents reported they would recommend the ECR award program to their peers.

Conclusions: This single-institution ECR award program had a positive impact on ECI's professional development and grant-writing skills and may lead to further extramural funding opportunities.

Keywords: award; institute; peer review; surveys and questionnaires; writing.

FIGURE 1

Early career research award timeline. CVRI, Cardiovascular Research Institute; CV, curriculum vitae; ECAC, Early Career Advisory Committee

FIGURE 2

Professional development feedback of all participants involved in ECR award program. A and B, rating of how the ECR award program participation enhanced professional development (1, did not enhance; 2, mildly enhanced; 3, moderately enhanced; 4, strongly enhanced) for (A) applicants and (B) reviewers. C, rating of how ECR award program participation helped reviewers to understand the grant‐writing process and scientific writing skills (0, not applicable; 1, not helpful; 2, slightly helpful; 3, moderately helpful; 4, very helpful). The graphs present median rating scores and ranges; each dot represents an individual rating score

FIGURE 3

Change in reviewer comfort with providing peer review for grants over time. Peer reviewers were surveyed before (pre) and after (post) the grant review study section to ascertain subjective comfort with providing peer review for grant applications. Data are presented as medians; n, number of reviewers

FIGURE 4

Impact of ECR award program participation on scientific writing skills. A, overall rating of how ECR award program helped with writing future grant or fellowship applications based on categorical scale (0, not applicable; 1, not helpful; 2, slightly helpful; 3, moderately helpful; 4, very helpful). Specifically, respondents reported how the ECR award program helped funded and unfunded applicants (B) conceptualize a project (C) define a project, and (D) refine a project and approach (0, not applicable; 1, not helpful; 2, slightly helpful; 3, moderately helpful; 4, very helpful). The graphs present median rating scores and ranges; each dot represents an individual rating score