What Factors are Important to the Success of Resubmitted Grant Applications in Health Research? A Retrospective Study of Over 20,000 Applications to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Wrightson, J. G.; Lasinsky, A.; Snell, R. R.; Hogel, M.; Mota, A.; Khan, K. M.; Ardern, C. L.
Show abstract
BackgroundIn this retrospective study, we investigated the outcomes (funded/not funded) and factors related to the funding of resubmitted applications to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Open Operating Grants Competition and Project Grant Competition between 2000 and 2022. Method and FindingsThe primary outcome was the proportion of resubmissions and new applications that were funded. Using a random forest model, we explored the importance of variables related to the success of resubmissions. A higher proportion of resubmissions ([~]23%) were funded compared to new submissions ([~]12%). The most important variables related to resubmission success were the rank (%) and score (/5) given to the preceding (initial) application and the number of the number of CIHR-funded grants where the PI was a named team member. ConclusionResubmitting applications to the CIHR Project Grant Competition was beneficial, particularly for projects that were previously highly ranked and received high scores. These results may offer guidance for researchers who are deciding whether to resubmit rejected applications.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic 93%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 92%
- Development, validation, and usage of metrics to evaluate clinical research hypothesis quality 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analysis of the Health Economics Portfolio Funded by the National Institutes of Health in Response to Published Guidance 95%
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 93%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data 93%
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 91%
- Inferring Gender from First Names: Comparing the Accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R Package on Authors of Diverse Nationality 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- An Experimental Test of the Effects of Redacting Grant Applicant Identifiers on Peer Review Outcomes 97%
- Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women 93%
- National Institutes of Health Research Project Grant Inflation 1998 to 2021 93%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.