ArticleBMJ open2024
Biomedical research grant resubmission: rates and factors related to success - a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A reduction in large animal research threatens the perinatal translation research pipeline.Pediatric research · 2026Review
- Creation of an mHealth Infrastructure to Support the Development and Delivery of mHealth Interventions: Protocol for Demonstration Projects Addressing Smoking Cessation in Cancer Care.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Biomedical research grant resubmission: rates and factors related to success - a scoping review.BMJ open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMost 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.
designScoping 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.
resultsResubmissions 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.
conclusionThe 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.
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.