生物医学研究补助金重新提交:成功率及相关因素--范围审查。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMJ Open Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089927
Anne M Lasinsky, James Wrightson, Hassan Khan, David Moher, Vanessa Kitchin, Karim Khan, Clare L Ardern
{"title":"生物医学研究补助金重新提交:成功率及相关因素--范围审查。","authors":"Anne M Lasinsky, James Wrightson, Hassan Khan, David Moher, Vanessa Kitchin, Karim Khan, Clare L Ardern","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Most first-time biomedical research grant applications are not funded. In the challenging research funding climate, resubmitting a grant application is a necessary task for scientists. Identifying which factors influence their decision to resubmit and the success of resubmissions will inform funders and applicants. However, data on resubmissions are fragmented and under-reported. In this scoping review, we aimed to summarise (1) the outcomes of resubmitting biomedical research grant applications and (2) the demographic characteristics of scientists who resubmitted grant applications.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review with reporting informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registrar of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and grey literature sources were searched through November 2022.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included peer-reviewed and grey literature records from the biomedical sciences that reported outcomes of the resubmission process (eg, resubmission success rate, rate of resubmission) and information about the scientists who resubmit grant applications (eg, sex, race, career stage).</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The data were cross-referenced and any conflicts were resolved via consensus. Data were summarised descriptively and presented in tables and figures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Resubmissions represented a substantial proportion of applications (lowest prevalence rate: 4%; highest prevalence rate: 56%) in a given funding cycle and were reliably more successful than first-time applications (lowest success rate: 16%; highest success rate: 82%)-a phenomenon associated with several sociodemographic, institutional and project-related factors. There was conflicting evidence about the relationship of sociodemographic-related, institution-related and project-related factors to resubmission likelihood and success.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The resubmission process is a time-consuming and often frustrating experience for researchers. Our review identified opportunities to streamline and improve the process to enhance the biomedical research landscape.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"14 11","pages":"e089927"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biomedical research grant resubmission: rates and factors related to success - a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Anne M Lasinsky, James Wrightson, Hassan Khan, David Moher, Vanessa Kitchin, Karim Khan, Clare L Ardern\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089927\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Most first-time biomedical research grant applications are not funded. In the challenging research funding climate, resubmitting a grant application is a necessary task for scientists. Identifying which factors influence their decision to resubmit and the success of resubmissions will inform funders and applicants. However, data on resubmissions are fragmented and under-reported. In this scoping review, we aimed to summarise (1) the outcomes of resubmitting biomedical research grant applications and (2) the demographic characteristics of scientists who resubmitted grant applications.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review with reporting informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registrar of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and grey literature sources were searched through November 2022.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included peer-reviewed and grey literature records from the biomedical sciences that reported outcomes of the resubmission process (eg, resubmission success rate, rate of resubmission) and information about the scientists who resubmit grant applications (eg, sex, race, career stage).</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The data were cross-referenced and any conflicts were resolved via consensus. Data were summarised descriptively and presented in tables and figures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Resubmissions represented a substantial proportion of applications (lowest prevalence rate: 4%; highest prevalence rate: 56%) in a given funding cycle and were reliably more successful than first-time applications (lowest success rate: 16%; highest success rate: 82%)-a phenomenon associated with several sociodemographic, institutional and project-related factors. There was conflicting evidence about the relationship of sociodemographic-related, institution-related and project-related factors to resubmission likelihood and success.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The resubmission process is a time-consuming and often frustrating experience for researchers. Our review identified opportunities to streamline and improve the process to enhance the biomedical research landscape.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open\",\"volume\":\"14 11\",\"pages\":\"e089927\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089927\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089927","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:大多数首次生物医学研究基金申请都得不到资助。在充满挑战的科研经费环境中,重新提交基金申请是科学家必须完成的任务。确定哪些因素会影响科学家重新提交申请的决定,以及重新提交申请的成功率,将为资助者和申请人提供信息。然而,有关重新提交申请的数据零散且报告不足。在此次范围审查中,我们旨在总结:(1)重新提交生物医学研究基金申请的结果;(2)重新提交基金申请的科学家的人口统计学特征:数据来源:MEDLINE、CINAHL、Entertainment.....:检索MEDLINE、CINAHL、EMBASE、Cochrane对照试验中央登记处CENTRAL、PsycINFO、Web of Science和灰色文献,检索期至2022年11月:我们纳入了生物医学科学领域的同行评议和灰色文献记录,这些记录报告了重新提交过程的结果(例如,重新提交成功率、重新提交率)以及重新提交基金申请的科学家的相关信息(例如,性别、种族、职业阶段):数据由两名审稿人独立提取。数据相互参照,任何冲突均通过协商一致的方式解决。对数据进行描述性总结,并以表格和数字的形式呈现:在特定的资助周期内,重新提交的申请占相当大的比例(最低比例:4%;最高比例:56%),而且成功率明显高于首次提交的申请(最低成功率:16%;最高成功率:82%)--这种现象与社会人口、机构和项目相关因素有关。关于社会人口学相关因素、机构相关因素和项目相关因素与再次提交申请的可能性和成功率之间的关系,存在相互矛盾的证据:对于研究人员来说,重新提交论文是一个耗时且往往令人沮丧的过程。我们的审查发现了简化和改进该流程的机会,以改善生物医学研究状况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Biomedical research grant resubmission: rates and factors related to success - a scoping review.

Objectives: Most first-time biomedical research grant applications are not funded. In the challenging research funding climate, resubmitting a grant application is a necessary task for scientists. Identifying which factors influence their decision to resubmit and the success of resubmissions will inform funders and applicants. However, data on resubmissions are fragmented and under-reported. In this scoping review, we aimed to summarise (1) the outcomes of resubmitting biomedical research grant applications and (2) the demographic characteristics of scientists who resubmitted grant applications.

Design: Scoping review with reporting informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registrar of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and grey literature sources were searched through November 2022.

Eligibility criteria: We included peer-reviewed and grey literature records from the biomedical sciences that reported outcomes of the resubmission process (eg, resubmission success rate, rate of resubmission) and information about the scientists who resubmit grant applications (eg, sex, race, career stage).

Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The data were cross-referenced and any conflicts were resolved via consensus. Data were summarised descriptively and presented in tables and figures.

Results: Resubmissions represented a substantial proportion of applications (lowest prevalence rate: 4%; highest prevalence rate: 56%) in a given funding cycle and were reliably more successful than first-time applications (lowest success rate: 16%; highest success rate: 82%)-a phenomenon associated with several sociodemographic, institutional and project-related factors. There was conflicting evidence about the relationship of sociodemographic-related, institution-related and project-related factors to resubmission likelihood and success.

Conclusion: The resubmission process is a time-consuming and often frustrating experience for researchers. Our review identified opportunities to streamline and improve the process to enhance the biomedical research landscape.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
期刊最新文献
Consensus definition of a radiologically healed fistula on magnetic resonance imaging in perianal Crohn's disease: an international Delphi study. An uncertain future: perspectives of emerging adults with inflammatory bowel disease-a qualitative semistructured interview study in eastern China. Behavioural economics to improve and motivate vaccination in primary care using nudges through the electronic health record: rationale and design of the BE IMMUNE randomised clinical trial. Economic effects of priority setting in healthcare: a scoping review of current evidence. Effects of low-dose aspirin in bipolar disorder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (the A-Bipolar RCT).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1