Size matters! On the implications of increasing the size of research grants

Bloch, Carter; Kladakis, Alexander; Sørensen, Mads Peter

doi:10.4337/9781800883086.00014

Handbook of Public Funding of Research 2023

DOI: 10.4337/9781800883086.00014

|View full text |Cite

Size matters! On the implications of increasing the size of research grants

Carter Bloch¹,

Alexander Kladakis²,

Mads Peter Sørensen³

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Improving the efficiency of research proposals evaluation: A two-stage procedure

Seeber,

Svege,

Hesselberg

2024

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important share of research funding is allocated via competitive programs, which entail considerable direct and indirect costs, such as to develop and evaluate the proposals. The goal of this article is to explore whether adopting a two-stage evaluation procedure could improve the efficiency of the process. For this purpose, we study the evaluation system designed by the Foundation Dam (Stiftelsen Dam), one of the largest foundations in Norway supporting health research. In 2020, Foundation Dam adopted a new evaluation procedure consisting in a short proposal for a first stage of selection and, for those selected, a second-stage evaluation of a long proposal. We explore whether such a procedure reduces the evaluation costs and how the evaluation procedures compare in terms of reliability. Survey responses from 94 of the 594 applicants in the one-stage procedure (2018–19) and all the 668 applicants in the two-stage procedure (2020–21) show that the two-stage procedure reduced the average time that applicants spent in drafting the proposal(s) by 38%. According to the reviewers’ estimate, the two-stage procedure also reduced by 28% the time they spent on average to evaluate an applicant’s proposal(s). The analysis of the evaluation data of 594 long proposals in the one-stage procedure and 668 short proposals in the two-stage procedure shows that reviewers’ scores of short proposals display greater reliability and agreement than the reviewers’ scores of long proposals in the old one-stage procedure. Our findings suggest that a two-stage procedure can substantially improve the efficiency of grant writing and review, without harming the reliability of the evaluation.

show abstract

Improving the efficiency of research proposals evaluation: A two-stage procedure

Seeber,

Svege,

Hesselberg

2024

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Size matters! On the implications of increasing the size of research grants

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Improving the efficiency of research proposals evaluation: A two-stage procedure

Improving the efficiency of research proposals evaluation: A two-stage procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About