The Architecture of an Internal, Scientific, Presubmission Review Program Designed to Increase the Impact and Success of Grant Proposals and Manuscripts

Abstract

Securing extramural grant funding and publishing in peer-reviewed journals are key indicators of success for many investigators in academic settings. As a result, these expectations are also sources of stress for investigators and trainees considering such careers. As competition over grant funding, costs of conducting research, and diffusion of effort across multiple demands increase, the need to submit high-quality applications and publications is paramount. For over 3 decades, the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California, San Francisco, has refined an internal, presubmission, peer review program to improve the quality and potential success of products before external submission. In this article, the rationale and practical elements of the system are detailed, and recent satisfaction reports, grant submission outcomes, and plans for ongoing tracking of the success rates of products reviewed are discussed. The program includes both early-stage concept reviews of ideas in their formative state and full product reviews of near-final drafts. Recent evaluation data indicate high levels of reviewee satisfaction with multiple domains of the process, including scheduling the review sessions, preparedness and expertise of the reviewers, and overall quality of the review. Outcome data from reviews conducted over a recent 12-month period demonstrate subsequent funding of 44% of proposals reviewed through the program, a success rate that surpasses the National Institutes of Health funding success rates for the same time period. Suggestions for the sustainability of the program and for its adoption at other institutions and settings less dependent on extramural funding are provided.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.