Grant Proposals Research Articles

Toward a New Precedent in Open Grants: An Exploration of Shared Challenges and Benefits of Making Grant Proposals Open Access in the Academic and Public Spheres

Toward a New Precedent in Open Grants: An Exploration of Shared Challenges and Benefits of Making Grant Proposals Open Access in the Academic and Public Spheres

The European Research Council Funding for frontier research in Europe

The European Research Council provides funding for independent researchers in all research areas and career stages. This session provides basic information on how to prepare an ERC grant proposal and how the ERC funding can support researchers and their careers.

Obtrusive Plagiarism and Data Falsification in Biological Sciences: Trends and Remedies

Scientific misconduct includes plagiarism, falsification and fabrication. The intentional presentation of other’s work as own work without any authority is referred as plagiarism. Plagiarism also contains other’s images, structure and designed elements. It affects both published and unpublished materials obtained through evaluation of dissertations, peer review process or grant proposals. Fabrication is another research misconduct in which some fake activities are committed such as making up data, results and reporting them. If there is no any experimentation, it is also called fabrication. The Study shows that 60% of articles published in predatory journals are not found to be cited over the five-year period from the date of publication. Clear ethical standards should be made for assuring the researchers whether their work break certain codes or not. The investigation of organizations must be transparent, fair and prompt into research irregularities.

Grant writing

Grant writing is the process of responding to an application for a financial grant from institutions such as research organisations, government agencies, corporations, foundations, trusts, and international funding organisations. The skills required to write successful grants are referred to as grantsmanship. Over the past few decades, the process of applying for grants has become increasingly complex and highly competitive. Therefore, the grant proposals must be based on innovative ideas, capable of advancing the current status of knowledge, compelling, and well-written. Types of Research Grants Collaborative research grants are usually interdisciplinary, multicentre, and multicountry. These are led by senior researchers with a team of co-investigators including post–doctoral fellows, and postgraduate students. Fellowships are individual research grants that provide the fellow who obtains the grant the time to focus on the research project for a stipulated time. Targeted grants are for early-career, mid-career, or senior researchers. The grant announcement for these indicates the category of researchers who are eligible to apply. Networking grants are aimed at developing teams and establishing teams of academic and research collaborators for a particular research topic. These grants provide funding for researchers to engage in discussions regarding potential research ideas. Small grants fund small research projects or preliminary research that provide initial data for larger research projects in the future. Travel grants are usually for professional development and are provided by disciplinary specialist organisations. The researcher is supported to travel to institutions that have resources or opportunities that are not available at their home institution. Knowledge transfer grants or industrial partnerships are grants aimed at promoting collaboration and knowledge exchange between academic and non-academic collaborators. The funds can also be used for proof of concept, pilots, and getting new products to the market. Conference grants are used to disseminate research findings or host research conferences. Grant proposals The proposals should conform to the guidelines indicated in the funding opportunity announcement. Funders have guidelines regarding the sections of the proposals, font type, and font sizes to be used, sections of the proposal, page limits for each section, and the overall proposal. Project narrative This section provides the most comprehensive description of the proposed project. The main areas are the background and literature review that identify research gaps. It contains the research problem and questions/aims and objectives and documents the proposed research methods. Other areas addressed are the project management and delivery plan, which may require work packages. The budget and budget justification are also addressed in this section. Other documents required are: The curriculum vitae of the investigators detailing their previous research and how it relates to the current application. Well-written letters of support from collaborators and collaborating institutions that address the roles and responsibilities of team members are essential. This is particularly important for collaborative research that involves various partners from other universities, non-academic organisations, and industry. These partners should provide signed letters of support that indicate the specific contribution of the collaborator and commitment research project, and the contribution in cash or in-kind.

Building Research for Academic and Community Equity (BRACE): A Toolkit for Community Research Partnerships.

Health and human service community organizations and researchers have important insights and resources to share with each other, yet often have very little information about how to interact in meaningful and equitable ways. Conceptualized by and for community organization professionals wanting to equitably interact with academic researchers, BRACE (Building Research for Academic and Community Equity) is a toolkit easily accessible to community members which explains research information and jargon in clear terms. BRACE uses community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles to guide both community organizations and academics seeking to partner on research. The BRACE toolkit's two main sections focus on identifying ideal aspects of community-academic research partnerships and writing grant proposals. Tools such as BRACE have the potential to increase the impact of community-engaged research by providing concrete guides for building partnerships and potentially sustaining them through grant funding.

FORWARD STEPS AND MISSTEPS: WHAT WE’VE LEARNED THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COMMUNITY-ENGAGED RESEARCH

Abstract Historically, research with Indigenous populations has disregarded community input, creating mistrust among tribal communities toward researchers, and resulting in communities limiting their involvement in research projects. Today, Indigenous communities are becoming more engaged in the research process, including developing their own tribal review boards, partnering with researchers throughout entire research process, as well as exercising their tribal sovereignty and housing their own data. These efforts have resulted in the development of rigorous Indigenous approval processes, increased engagement of Indigenous people and communities in research, and studies that have direct impacts on those engaged, as well as future generations, as well as protect both the Indigenous communities and the researchers. As a researcher trained to conduct culturally respectful and culturally safe research with Indigenous communities in Alaska, my team and I have gained first-hand experience with tribal research protocols, research processes, and the iterative process of developing relationships, navigating research ethics, as well as ensuring that findings are reflective of the community, its individual members, and the region. Despite our best efforts, research does not go as written in our grant proposals. This presentation will outline the complexities of navigating tribal approval processes in Alaska, highlight some of the challenges we have faced while conducting community-engaged research in Alaska; our lessons learned by doing it incorrectly. We will also share recommendations for researchers interested in working with Indigenous communities and how to work collaboratively with to avoid pitfalls, but also how to get back on track and develop lasting relationships.

Understanding Stakeholder Dissemination Preferences for an Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Injury Surveillance System

ABSTRACT Researchers and epidemiologists are working to improve the capture of agriculture, forestry, and fishing (AgFF) injuries in a variety of ways. A critical component of any surveillance system is the dissemination of information. The purpose of this paper is to report on a survey conducted with AgFF injury surveillance stakeholders to understand preferred dissemination strategies. The survey was distributed using REDCap via web link to organizational stakeholders, which included advisory board members, safety trainers, industry managers and workers, and research collaborators. In total, there were 75 respondents (21% response rate). Occupation and industry influenced preference in update methods. Regarding the length and breadth of updates, 63% of respondents prefer reports (one to five pages), followed by 57% desiring a summary (less than one page), while only 24% wanted a detailed analysis. Social media and news preferences were also different among stakeholders. Surveillance data were desired for 1) trend analysis, 2) tailoring activities and solutions for education, training, outreach and interventions and 3) for research purposes such as grant proposals and evaluation. The dissemination of injury surveillance data should be tailored to the intended audience. Greater attention needs to be paid to the ways in which we share our findings.

A Tiered Model for Data Management, Curation, and Sharing Support in Grant Proposals and Budgets

Recent trends in research funder policies and guidelines increasingly point to requirements for more detailed plans for data management, curation, and sharing with an emphasis on including allowable costs in grant budgets to support these activities as well. As a result, libraries and other collaborating units at academic institutions have an opportunity to develop streamlined models that allow researchers to incorporate institutional resources for data management, curation, and sharing into their grant proposals along with costs to support these resources. While the current literature contains examples and discussions of general funding approaches to activities like data curation and long-term preservation, little has been written on formal models or strategies for incorporating data management and curation support into the grant proposal and budget process itself. This article describes the development and implementation of a tiered grant support model at the University of Colorado Boulder that provides three levels of services, infrastructure, and expertise to researchers who are looking to incorporate support and costs for data management, curation, and sharing into their grant proposals. The article also presents lessons learned since the soft launch of the grant support model as well as key challenges that have emerged. This model may serve as an example for other institutions to use or adapt to continue to help researchers meet funder requirements while simultaneously increasing the visibility of existing data management and curation resources and identifying potential new revenue or cost recovery streams.

Customized Career Development Platform (CCDP) for clinical and translational researchers: A pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Early-stage clinical and translational researchers who set and track career goals, milestones, and progress are successful in career development. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the Customized Career Development Platform (CCDP), an online individual development plan (IDP), versus the traditional IDP template in improving research success and career satisfaction. We conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial of 340 scholars and trainees at 27 US academic healthcare institutions. The primary outcome was number of published manuscripts 24 months post-intervention. Secondary outcomes included the number of grant proposals submitted and funded, job satisfaction, and level of communication with mentors. An analysis of CCDP participants assessed proficiency level for the 14 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) competencies. Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat. Participants were mostly female (60.3%) and Caucasian (67.2%); mean age was 34 years. Twenty-four months following the intervention, the CCDP versus traditional IDP groups showed a similar number of publications (9.4 vs 8.6), grants submitted (4.1 vs 4.4) and funded (1.3 vs 2.0), and job satisfaction score (3.6 vs 3.7). The CCDP group had higher odds of discussing communication (OR = 2.08) and leadership skills (OR = 2.62) and broadening their network (2.31) than the traditional IDP group. The CCDP arm reported improvements in 9 of the 14 CTSA competencies. The CCDP offers CTSA hubs an innovative alternative to traditional IDP tools. Future studies are needed to elucidate why the CCDP users did not fully appreciate or adopt the functionality of the online platform.

Abstract 13914: Development of a High School Mentorship and Scholarship Program to Promote Interest in Healthcare Among Students Underrepresented in Medicine

Introduction: Despite the rising demand, positive career outlooks, and promising salary in healthcare professions, youth from underrepresented backgrounds continue to be poorly represented in these careers. Mentorship has emerged as a strategy to enhance the involvement of underrepresented youth in healthcare careers, serving as one of the few effective approaches to address this disparity. Aims: The aim of this study was to develop practical recommendations for founding, growing, and sustaining a mentorship and scholarship program between a physician group and a racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse local high school. Methods: Each year, six events were hosted for high school students interested in healthcare. Events included hands-on activities, networking events, career panel discussions, and field trips to our simulation center. Following 2 years of successful program execution, a modified mini-Delphi approach was used to develop formal recommendations for founding, growing, and sustaining such a program. Results: On an observational basis, the mentorship program appeared effective at growing high school student interest in healthcare careers. Utilizing a modified mini-Delphi method, we created recommendations for the development of a healthcare mentorship and scholarship program. These recommendations are shown in Figure 1. Conclusions: These recommendations may serve as a guide for other programs that wish to establish similar programs. All our self-developed curricula, grant proposals, and marketing materials will be freely shared with any group wishing to develop a similar program.

Late to the Party: Articulating Time and Care in Interdisciplinary Projects

This article explores the disjunctures and “catch-up” work of developing relationships and getting a sense of the project as community and intellectual venture as a “fill-in” social scientist added late to a large, complex interdisciplinary project. Based on two years of intermittent interactions (live and virtual) and tracking the communications of the group, from grant proposal formulation through the first year of the award, I describe how time operates in several registers: idiosyncratic, disciplinary, institutional, and epistemic. How these registers intersect with and without friction is an unexamined issue in studies of interdisciplinarity. It is more than “time management,” although that is a significant coordination challenge for project leadership. But the (dis)articulations of registers also trace the hierarchicalization of disciplines and practices in ways that challenge effective interdisciplinarity and program goals of inclusivity.

Exploring the relationship between gender and competencies development in higher education institutions: Perspectives from a university in Zimbabwe

This research explores challenges faced by female academics in higher education institutions (HEIs) as they strive to cultivate the competencies necessary for a sustainable future. To delve into these challenges, a qualitative case study was conducted at a Zimbabwean university. All 64 academics employed at the university participated in the study, employing focus group discussions, face-to-face interviews, and online questionnaires, adapting to COVID-19 restrictions. The findings uncovered a lack of gender integration in university programmes and initiatives, leading to unequal engagement and limited access to resources and opportunities. A substantial portion of female academics lacked essential competencies in research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and grant proposal writing. These imbalances stemmed from male academics holding influential roles and controlling significant resources. Consequently, the research concludes that the institution's prevailing culture, systems, and procedures impede the development of vital skills among female academics, restricting their ability to contribute fully to a better future.

The cost of ‘care’ in neoliberal academia during the COVID-19 pandemic: Women academics, teaching and emotional labour

The literature shows that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, in the different regions of the world (Europe, Africa, Asia, North America and Latin America), women academics submitted fewer articles and grant proposals than their peers who are men because, in addition to the increased burden of domestic work, they devoted more time to teaching activities and to the demands of students, than to their research activities. However, little is known about what drives the high level of commitment by women academics to their tutoring and pastoral care duties. This article looks at how women embodied their teaching tasks throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ‘emotional labour’ that this required of them. Findings from the analysis of 17 in-depth interviews conducted with women scholars in Portugal point to the complexity and contradictions in the ‘emotional labour’ carried out by women teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide evidence of overlaps with the practice of ‘care’.

DiSSCo Prepare Project: Increasing the Implementation Readiness Levels of the European Research Infrastructure

The Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo) is a new world-class Research Infrastructure (RI) for Natural Science Collections. The DiSSCo RI aims to create a new business model for one European collection that digitally unifies all European natural science assets under common access, curation, policies and practices that ensure that all the data is easily Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR principles). DiSSCo represents the largest ever formal agreement between natural history museums, botanic gardens and collection-holding institutions in the world. DiSSCo entered the European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures in 2018 and launched its main preparatory phase project (DiSSCo Prepare) in 2020. DiSSCo Prepare is the primary vehicle through which DiSSCo reaches the overall maturity necessary for its construction and eventual operation. DiSSCo Prepare raises DiSSCo’s implementation readiness level (IRL) across the five dimensions: technical, scientific, data, organisational and financial. Each dimension of implementation readiness is separately addressed by specific Work Packages (WP) with distinct targets, actions and tasks that will deliver DiSSCo’s Construction Masterplan. This comprehensive and integrated Masterplan will be the product of the outputs of all of its content related tasks and will be the project’s final output. It will serve as the blueprint for construction of the DiSSCo RI, including establishing it as a legal entity. DiSSCo Prepare builds on the successful completion of DiSSCo’s design study, ICEDIG and the outcomes of other DiSSCo-linked projects such as SYNTHESYS+ and MOBILISE. This paper is an abridged version of the original DiSSCo Prepare grant proposal. It contains the overarching scientific case for DiSSCo Prepare, alongside a description of our major activities.

Research Initiative Supporting Excellence at the University of Cincinnati (RISE-UC): A Program to Develop and Support Research-Active Faculty Members.

A combination of forces have markedly increased challenges to research-active faculty achieving sustained success. This article describes how one department at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine (UCCOM) implemented a strategic plan, the Research Initiative Supporting Excellence at the University of Cincinnati (RISE-UC), to promote the research activity of its research-active faculty, fiscal year (FY) 2011-FY 2021. RISE-UC was implemented and regularly updated to address evolving needs. RISE-UC supported faculty members pursuing research via fiscal and administrative services to grow a critical mass of investigators; establish a shared governance model; create pathways for developing physician-scientists; develop discrete and targeted internal research funding; establish an Academic Research Service (ARS) unit (as infrastructure to support research); enhance faculty member mentorship; and recognize, celebrate, and reward research success. RISE-UC was informed by shared governance and resulted in substantial increases in total size of the faculty and external funding. More than 50% of Physician-Scientist Training Program graduates are active researchers at UCCOM. The internal awards program realized a return on investment of ~16.4-fold, and total external direct cost research funds increased from ~$55,400,000 (FY 2015) to ~$114,500,000 (FY 2021). The ARS assisted in the submission of 57 grant proposals and provided services faculty members generally found very helpful or helpful. The peer-mentoring group for early-career faculty members resulted in 12 of 23 participants receiving major grant funding (≥ $100,000; spring 2017-spring 2021) from sources including National Institutes of Health awards, Department of Defense funding, Veterans Affairs funding, and foundation awards. Research recognition included ~$77,000/year in incentive payments to faculty members for grant submissions and grants awarded. RISE-UC is an example of a comprehensive approach to promote research faculty member success and may serve as a model for other institutions with similar aspirations.

Can civil society organizations and faith‐based organizations in Fiji, Samoa, and Solomon Islands access climate finance?

AbstractMotivationDespite global rhetoric to increase climate finance to civil society organizations and faith‐based organizations (CSOs‐FBOs), little is known about how accessible climate funds are for these organizations in the Pacific Islands.PurposeWe posed three broad questions: (1) what types of climate finance did CSOs and FBOs obtain? (2) what barriers did CSOs and FBOs face to obtain climate finance? and (3) what innovative approaches or solutions did CSOs and FBOs use to obtain climate finance?Methods and approachIn 2022, key informant interviews and focus group discussions were held in Fiji, led by House of Sarah; in Samoa, led by the Samoa Women's Association of Growers; and in Solomon Islands, led by the Coalition of Youths for Environmental Sustainability. Most CSOs and FBOs had fewer than 10 employees, with many relying on volunteers.FindingsCSOs and FBOs generally pursued funding aligned to their values, priorities, and needs. None of the organizations had obtained funds from the large multilaterals, such as Green Climate Funds and Adaptation Fund. Their funds were seen as poorly suited to local organizations. The main barriers to obtaining climate finance were: (1) poor dissemination of information on the availability and suitability of funding sources for CSOs and FBOs; (2) overly complex donor processes and requirements; (3) insufficient capacity to write grant proposals and to manage funds; (4) poor recognition by donors of the role of CSOs and FBOs in development; and (5) difficult relationships with national governments and donors marked by differences in power. To overcome some barriers, some CSOs and FBOs partnered with regional or global organizations with the capacity to absorb the administrative burden of writing proposals and managing grants. In other cases, CSOs and FBOs made use of professionals with experience of donors who volunteered their time to craft or edit proposals.Policy implicationsDonors can create or inhibit equitable access to climate funding. If donors are genuinely committed to helping CSOs‐FBOs obtain climate finance, they should reduce the complexity of grant‐making and tailor it to local contexts and priorities. They should also work through regional or national intermediaries to reach grassroots organizations.

A curricular model to train doctoral students in interdisciplinary research at the food-energy-water nexus

Food, energy and water (FEW) systems are inextricably linked, and thus, solutions to FEW nexus challenges, including water and food insecurity, require an interconnected science and policy approach framed in systems thinking. To drive these solutions, we developed an interdisciplinary, experiential graduate education program focused on innovations at the FEW nexus. As part of our program, PhD students complete a two-course sequence: (1) an experiential introduction to innovations at the FEW nexus and (2) a data practicum. The two courses are linked through an interdisciplinary FEW systems research project that begins during the first course and is completed at the end of the second course. Project deliverables include research manuscripts, grant proposals, policy memos, and outreach materials. Topics addressed in these projects include building electrification to reduce reliance on fossil fuels for heating, agrivoltaic farming to combat FEW vulnerabilities in the southwestern United States, assessment of food choices to influence sustainable dining practices, and understanding the complexities of FEW nexus research and training at the university level. Evaluation data were generated from our first three student cohorts (n = 33 students) using a mixed method, multi-informant evaluation approach, including the administration of an adapted version of a validated pre-post-survey to collect baseline and end-of-semester data. The survey assessed student confidence in the following example areas: communication, collaboration, and interdisciplinary research skills. Overall, students reported confidence growth in utilizing interdisciplinary research methods (e.g., synthesize the approaches and tools from multiple disciplines to evaluate and address a research problem), collaborating with range of professionals and communicating their research results to diverse audience. The growth in confidence in the surveyed areas aligned with the learning objectives for the two-course sequence, and the interdisciplinary project experience was continually improved based on student feedback. This two-course sequence represents one successful approach for educators to rethink the traditional siloed approach of training doctoral students working at the FEW nexus.

Distrust in grant peer review—reasons and remedies

Abstract With the increasing reliance on competitive grants to fund research, we see a review system under pressure. While peer review has long been perceived as the cornerstone of self-governance in science, researchers have expressed distrust in the peer review procedures of funding agencies. This paper draws on literature pointing out ability, benevolence, and integrity as important for trustworthiness and explores the conditions under which researchers have confidence in grant review. Based on rich survey material, we find that researchers trust grant reviewers far less than they trust journal peer reviewers or their colleagues’ ability to assess their research. Yet, scholars who have success with grant proposals or serve on grant review panels appear to have more trust in grant reviewers. We conclude that transparency and reviewers with field competencies are crucial for trust in grant review and discuss how this can be ensured.

Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review

AbstractTechnology is being developed to support the peer review processes of journals, conferences, funders, universities, and national research evaluations. This literature and software summary discusses the partial or complete automation of several publishing‐related tasks: suggesting appropriate journals for an article, providing quality control for submitted papers, finding suitable reviewers for submitted papers or grant proposals, reviewing, and review evaluation. It also discusses attempts to estimate article quality from peer review text and scores as well as from post‐publication scores but not from bibliometric data. The literature and existing examples of working technology show that automation is useful for helping to find reviewers and there is good evidence that it can sometimes help with initial quality control of submitted manuscripts. Much other software supporting publishing and editorial work exists and is being used, but without published academic evaluations of its efficacy. The value of artificial intelligence (AI) to support reviewing has not been clearly demonstrated yet, however. Finally, whilst peer review text and scores can theoretically have value for post‐publication research assessment, it is not yet widely enough available to be a practical evidence source for systematic automation.

Recommendations for Writing a National Institutes of Health Individual Predoctoral Fellowship (F31) Training Grant in Dissemination and Implementation Science.

Early career training is an essential component of building the future of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science. The United States National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Individual Predoctoral Fellowship (F31) award offers a mechanism for doctoral students to acquire specialized D&I training and mentorship, to pursue independent research in D&I science, and to receive financial support for their graduate studies. Due to scarce resources on preparing early career grant proposals focused on D&I science, this commentary offers guidance to doctoral students on developing a successful application for a specific type of early career proposal - the NIH F31 mechanism. We offer strategies for the research and training components based on themes identified across six funded F31 grant applications and on our experiences in the application process (grants funded from 2019-2020). We are from diverse fields (clinical psychology, school psychology, public health, and epidemiology) with varied research foci (global health, mental health, and infectious diseases). Applications were funded on both the F31 and F31-Diversity mechanisms. Funded F31 research projects included dissemination strategies, treatment adaptions, piloting new methods, and pre-implementation inquiry. Common training goals included developing content expertise in D&I science, understanding specific D&I science methodologies, learning strategies for working with community partners, and enhancing knowledge of analytic methods. D&I training activities included journal clubs, meeting with consultants, attending D&I science trainings, and attending conferences. Mentored research training is essential for learning D&I science methods and developing research-practice partnerships as students.