Jump to comment:

• Grant preparation time: the law of diminishing returns prompts a rethink on the application and review process
  Andrew W. Taylor-Robinson
  Published on: 23 November 2015

• Published on: 23 November 2015

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

  • Andrew W. Taylor-Robinson, Professorial Research Fellow, Health CRN and School of Medical & Applied Sciences

  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

  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 over the meaning and impact of single words, may be a superfluous and time -consuming exercise. So what does contribute to success with NHMRC?

  The art of grantsmanship focuses primarily on convincing the reviewer of the significance and importance of the question from the start of the application, in effect 'selling the concept'. More time may be spent on how the grant is written rather than what is written. Some may find it straightforward to convey the scientific content of their proposal but pitching the idea so that it grabs the attention of the reviewers and panel members may not come so easily to all. It is this quality of advocacy (the 'Dragon's Den' philosophy) that necessarily develops later in the process of grant preparation. Herbert et al. indicate that this may be less important than the investment of effort that is currently the trend.

  If it can be measured or reliably estimated, what is the optimum time for grant preparation? This may be thought of as the 'saturation point' at which input of time maximises the likelihood of a successful outcome, just as the preparation time/success curve starts to plateau. Beyond this point, no more input in developing the text of the research plan will result in an increase in profitable output. It is here that the study questions the usefulness of further time spent, when a positive or negative decision on the application is affected less by the scientific quality, significance and innovation of the proposal and more by other factors (which cannot be buffed to a shine so easily), notably the track record of the individual investigators and the combined expertise and experience of the assembled team.

  The findings report that for submission of a project grant to the NHMRC, a chief investigator spends an average of 27 and 21 working days on each new or resubmitted proposal, respectively. Anecdotally, each of several colleagues who read this article made independently the same comment that it took them longer, and the consensus view was that, consciously or unconsciously, there was a trend for questionnaire participants to under-report the time it took. Maybe they do not wish to admit, at least publicly (albeit in an anonymous form), how long it takes? Almost certainly, the sometimes considerable gestation period as the initial pre-proposal is formulated is not accounted for in this research.

  Therefore, also what should be considered is the time of preparation before the writing stage is reached. Standard practice these days may involve completion of a pilot study to allay concerns over project feasibility. If the subsequent application is unsuccessful and the proposal is shelved, pilot study data may never be made available in the public domain. Also not factored is the time for internal peer review, feedback and refining, or the time for pre-submission appraisal by one or more external experts and subsequent amendments. Both practices, as well as the assigning of internal and/or external mentors to review the application, have become strategies used by universities to improve application quality. It is assumed that the fine tuning of a grant by the internal/external mentors will improve its chances of being awarded. The authors suggest that such institutional pre-submission review by internal/external mentors is a particularly ineffective use of time and staff resources.

  The practice of universities nominating members of their academic staff to NHMRC panels is suggested as an unproductive strategy to improve institutional performance. The received wisdom is that a panel member has privileged insight into the mechanism by which grants are awarded, and that this awareness may be shared with colleagues at the home university. What may appear as a shrewd plan may not actually accrue much in the way of indirect benefit. The considerable additional work load to that academic may be better served more directly in performing research (perhaps in gaining preliminary data for their next grant application). Of course, this does not factor the perceived status effect of being a panel member. Maybe, what you lose on the swings, you gain on the roundabouts...

  While data reported are for the NHMRC, it would be interesting to know if the findings are comparable with other medical research grant- awarding organisations worldwide - such as the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health and the European Commission. In Australian terminology, the NHMRC is designated as a prestigious 'category 1' grant provider (as listed on the Australian Competitive Grants Register). Are the observations made for category 1 also relevant to applications for research income from other public sector sources (category 2) and from industry (category 3)? Does one model fit all?

  The authors suggest the introduction of a two-step process of peer review to reduce unnecessary burden to both applicant and reviewer. This would require an initial submission of the research proposal (question, approach, experimental plan and outcome) followed, upon request, by submission of further administrative details (facilities, financial support for resources and personnel). This process of peer review is similar to those already in place for some other Australian category 1 funding agencies, e.g. Meat & Livestock Australia. There is a call for expressions of interest, followed by preliminary submissions, authors of a proportion of which - after review - are invited to proceed to a full application.

  Taking the views of Herbert et al. a stage further, I recommend a stepwise process be implemented: (i) expression of interest (one page) followed by (ii) a preliminary proposal (three pages), then on to a full proposal (currently nine pages for NHMRC), with supplementary details only furnished if requested. This triage approach could quickly and efficiently eliminate those applications unlikely to be funded. Furthermore, proposals should be anonymised (similar to a single-blind trial), so that the identity and location of the applicant(s) are not known to reviewers. This will ensure that the focus is solely on the merits of the idea, and not subject to cognitive bias via the 'halo effect' of the reputation of an individual, their department or their institution.

  Given that 79% of grants submitted to the NHMRC in 2012 were unsuccessful, this represents an awful lot of money spent by the higher education sector that sees no tangible return at a time when it is increasingly 'under the pump'. In view of the current cost containment and revenue reduction at Australian universities, a change to the present application and review process is particularly warranted.

  Conflict of Interest:

  None declared

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top