Responses

Download PDFPDF

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Grant preparation time: the law of diminishing returns prompts a rethink on the application and review process

    Using data from the 2012 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) application round, Herbert and colleagues provide an estimate of the cost (in dollars and hours) of preparing a research grant. They conclude that more time spent by a chief investigator preparing a proposal does not increase the chance of being awarded a grant and that the relentless polishing of grant text, to the extent of poring o...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.