To apply or not to apply: A survey analysis of grant writing costs and benefits

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2015, Pages

  Von Hippel, Ted ^a   Von Hippel, Courtney ^b  

^a EMBRY RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASTRONOMER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONMEDICAL OCCUPATIONS; NORMAL HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGIST; TIME; WRITING; ECONOMICS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FINANCING, ORGANIZED; RESEARCH; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; WRITING;

EID: 84956680556     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118494     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Pflumm M. NIH funding rates drop to record lows. Nature Medicine 2011;17:637. doi: 10.1038/nm0 611-637a PMID: 21647126
2. Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. Available: http://report.nih.gov/fundingfacts/fundingfacts.aspx. Accessed 2014 Dec. 19.
3. NSF Funding Statistics. Available: http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/awdfr3/default.asp. Accessed 2014 Dec. 19.
4. National Science Board. Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation's Merit Review Process Fiscal Year 2012. 2013; NSB-13-33.
5. Martin MR, Kopstein A, Janice JM. An Analysis of Preliminary and Post-Discussion Priority Scores for Grant Applications Peer Reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH. PLOS One 2010; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013526
6. Marsh HW, Jayasinghe UW, Bond NW. Improving the Peer-Review Process for Grant Applications: Reliability, Validity, Bias, and Generalizability. American Psychologist 2008;63:160-168. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160 PMID: 18377106
7. Danthi N, Wu CO, Shi P, Lauer MS. Percentile Ranking and Citation Impact of a Large Cohort of NHLBI-Funded Cardiovascular R01 Grants. Circulation Research 2014; doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA. 114.302656
8. Ballou J, Mishkind M, Mooney G, Van Kammen W. National Science Foundation Report on Efficiency of Grant Size and Duration: Principal Investigator FY 2001 Grant Award Survey and Institutional Survey. Mathematica Policy Research 2002;8814-006.
9. National Science Board study. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/start.htm. Accessed 2014 Apr. 16.
10. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Advancing Research in Science and Engineering: Investing in Early Career Scientists and High-Risk, High-Reward Research. Cambridge, MA: AAAS; 2008.
11. Augustine NR, Barrett C, Cassell G, Grasmick N, Holliday C, Jackson SA, et al. Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.
12. Hurtado S, Eagan MK, Pryor JH, Whang H, Tran S. Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2010-2011 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA; 2012.
13. Barrett L, Barrett P. Women and academic workloads: career slow lane or Cul-de-sac? Higher Education 2011;61:145-155.
14. Sheltzer JM, Smith JC. Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. PNAS 2014;111:28.
15. Merton RK. The Matthew Effect In Science. Science 1968;159:56-63. PMID: 17737466
16. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Unlimited Potential, Vanishing Opportunity: Nondefense Discretionary Science 2013 Survey. Rockville, MD: ASBMB; 2013.
17. Carulli AJ. Reduced funding and sequestration impact young biomedical researchers. Am J of Phys-Gastro and Liver Phys. 2013;305:G761-G762.