ArticlePloS one2023
Can't We Do Better? A cost-benefit analysis of proposal writing in a competitive funding environment.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The costs of competition in distributing scarce research funds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents an analysis of third-party funding in Austria for energy research, including an analysis of the costs and benefits of writing proposals and of the trust proposal applicants place in the application process. For this purpose, applicants from research and industry applying for government-funded energy research grants in Austria were surveyed. Preparing a new proposal takes about 50 working days; at the current success rate, about 300 person-days are spent preparing proposals for a single proposal to be funded.More than 90% of researchers perceive that they currently spend too much time preparing proposals and only 10% of researchers believe that the current competitive third-party funding system has a positive effect on the quality of research. Furthermore, researchers have limited trust in the objectivity of proposal review processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.