Biomedical research grant resubmission: rates and factors related to success – a scoping review

Anne M. Lasinsky · James Graeme Wrightson · David Moher · Vanessa Kitchin · Karim M. Khan · Clare L. Ardern

8 citations0/0 files storedBMJ Open

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Research, Science, and Academia scientometrics and bibliometrics research Health and Medical Research Impacts

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

References

2018PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation 2018Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach 2020Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews 2022PRISMA2020 : An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis 2011Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards 2019Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists 2015Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands 2016Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and National Institutes of Health R01 Research Awards: Is There Evidence of a Double Bind for Women of Color?

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.