Top ten strategies to enhance grant-writing success

Six tips for successful grant writing

ABSTRACT

Physician associates/assistants (PAs) are poised to be excellent grant writers for local projects that can improve access to quality care and improve the finances of historically underserved, urban, and rural healthcare communities. Because grant writing focuses on the dream of what is possible with funding, it contrasts with other forms of medical writing, which focus on past findings. This article aims to introduce PAs to six steps that can help them with grant writing, with a goal of improving patient care or starting community outreach projects.

Breast Imaging Research: Tips for Obtaining Funding and Sustaining a Successful Career

Many factors are involved in the successful development of early career breast imaging radiologists into independent investigators conducting impactful research. Key basic prerequisites for success include a motivated and resilient radiologist, institutional and departmental commitment to supporting early career physician-scientists, strong mentorship, and a flexible strategy for extramural funding that accounts for individualized professional goals. In this review, we describe these factors in greater detail, providing a practical overview for residents, fellows, and junior faculty who are interested in an academic career as a breast imaging radiologist engaged in original scientific research. We also describe the essential pieces of grant applications and summarize the professional milestones for early career physician-scientists as they look toward promotion to associate professor and sustained extramural funding.

Ancillary documents for NIH grant applications: The pages beyond the science

Preparing a grant proposal is no small feat, especially for research (R-series) grants from the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, and as such, procuring a research grant from the National Institutes of Health is one of the ultimate benchmarks of success for a surgeon-scientist. Most investigators are familiar with the page limits for most R-series grants (12 pages for an R01 and 6 pages for an R21), with the addition of a single page allotted for the specific aims. Interestingly, despite the usual focus on the aforementioned research section, the rest of the application can routinely consist of an additional 100 to 150 pages, which means that pages allotted for the specific aims and research strategy represent only 10% of the complete application package. For busy surgeons, it is this abundance of ancillary documentation that can make preparing a research grant particularly onerous. Fortunately, for some, support exists within the department to help prepare much of this documentation by drawing from previous sources, templates, and boilerplate language that has been developed. Although these resources can significantly reduce the burden on individual investigators, there is a danger of leaning on generalized templates that can dilute the message of the overall grant proposal and introduce extraneous or incorrect information that can ultimately impact the cohesiveness and ultimately the competitiveness of the grant. The focus of this article is to educate surgeon-scientists regarding the purpose and importance of the ancillary information required for National Institutes of Health research grants and how to make the most of institutional resources while tailoring these materials to create a cohesive, competitive grant application.

The catch-22 of promotion: Is becoming department chair of surgery a threat to the triple threat?

BACKGROUND

Despite the "fourth threat" of administrative demands, department chairs of surgery are expected to continue being a "triple threat": productive in research, outstanding in teaching, and exemplary in practice. Increased demands despite limited time are the catch-22 of promotion. This study investigated the influence of becoming department chair on scholarly vigor.

METHODS

The surgeons listed in the Society of Surgical Chairs Membership Directory website (n = 118) were included in this study. Three measures were compared during the pre- and post-promotion phases: (1) research productivity (annual publications); (2) authorship position in publications (first-authorship, co-authorship, and senior-authorship); and (3) scholarly impact (m-index and National Institute of Health funding).

RESULTS

The median [interquartile range] number of publications per year increased post-promotion versus pre-promotion (7.64 [3.81-14.15] vs 4.12 [2.08-7.03], P < .0005). The median [interquartile range] number of first-authorship publications per year decreased (0.50 [0.00-1.00] vs 0.64 [0.32-1.22], P < .05), whereas the median [interquartile range] number of co-authorship (4.23 [1.98-9.70] vs 2.02 [1.02-3.95], P < .0005) and senior-authorship (1.87 [0.99-4.03] vs 1.00 [0.36-2.24], P < .0005) publications per year increased post-promotion. The mean ± standard deviation m-index increased post-promotion (1.67 ± 1.19 vs 1.23 ± 0.83, P < .01). The mean ± standard deviation annual National Institute of Health grant funding amount of 48% (n = 57) of the department chairs increased post-promotion ($365,000 ± $899,000 vs $98,000 ± $143,000 pre-promotion, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The fourth threat of administrative demands is not a threat to the triple threat. This study showed the department chairs' continued scholarly vigor after promotion, providing insight into their tenacity, resilience, and dedication.

Practical Tools and Guidelines for Young Oncologists From Resource-Limited Settings to Publish Excellence and Advance Their Career

Cancer research is evolving worldwide. However, publishing high-quality academic literature in oncology remains challenging for authors in the developing world. Young oncologists in low- and middle-income countries experience several barriers including lack of funding and research facilities, as well as inadequate training. Publication best practices, science integrity, and ethics are required to improve oncology research quality and therefore, improve patients' care in these countries. To achieve this goal, we propose some basic principles and tools that may help young oncologists especially in developing countries overcome these issues and boost their academic careers.