The Architecture of an Internal, Scientific, Presubmission Review Program Designed to Increase the Impact and Success of Grant Proposals and Manuscripts

Outcomes of a Career Development Award (Pre-K) Mock Review Program for Postdoctoral Fellows and Early-Career Faculty

PURPOSE

Securing research funding for early-career investigators remains challenging. The authors present the results of a presubmission career development award (Pre-K) review program for postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty.

METHOD

The Pre-K program is designed to help mentored postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty write successful career development awards by assigning expert reviewers to score each application and provide written and oral critiques before a mock study section. Applicants and mentors attend the review and can ask questions directly to reviewers about their application. Quarterly, annual, and alumni surveys are sent to applicants who participated in the Pre-K program to assess satisfaction, confirm grant submission and status (i.e., funded and unfunded), and understand the long-term career impact of the program.

RESULTS

A total of 212 applicants (136 [64%] female; 19 [9%] from underrepresented in medicine groups) participated in the program between 2014 and 2021. Outcome data from 194 grants were available. Among these grants, 71 were awarded (37% success rate). Among underrepresented in medicine applicants, 7 of 18 submitted grants were funded (39% success rate). Of 183 Pre-K participants sent the alumni survey, 123 (67%) responded. Academic degrees included 64 PhDs (52%), 46 MDs (37%), and 14 MDs/PhDs (11%). One hundred nine respondents (90%) were employed in an academic institution, and 106 (86%) devoted more than 50% of their time to research. One hundred twelve (91%) reported receipt of an award (87 [78%] federal and 59 [53%] intramural funding), the most common being National Institutes of Health K/Career Development Awards. Pre-K was rated as very useful to their careers by 102 respondents (83%).

CONCLUSIONS

A Pre-K mock review program can assist early-career investigators in securing funding and launching their research career. Continued investment in the next generation of clinical and translational researchers should remain an institutional priority.

The Proposal Preparation Program: A Group Mentoring, Faculty Development Model to Facilitate the Submission and Funding of NIH Grant Applications

This article describes the University of Minnesota Medical School Proposal Preparation Program (P3). P3 is designed to develop grant-writing skills for assistant professors preparing their first K- or R-series application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Three 4-month P3 cycles are conducted annually. For each cycle, a cohort of around 10 assistant professor participants and 5 regular faculty mentors meet for ten ~2-hour group sessions. Participants receive iterative oral and written feedback on their proposals in development within a small, interdisciplinary, group mentoring setting providing structure, accountability, guidance, and support. Between sessions, 1 peer and 1 mentor are assigned (on a rotating basis) to critique each participant's developing application. The sessions include a brief mentor-led presentation on a particular grant section followed by discussion of each participant's application conducted by the assigned reviewers. The cycle concludes with a mock NIH review session, in which each participant is matched with a University of Minnesota faculty content expert who critiques their completed application using NIH guidelines. In a survey sent to all past P3 participants as of 2018 (n = 194), 88% of respondents reported having submitted their P3-developed NIH grant, and 35% of these submitters reported funding success. A separate analysis of institutional data for all past P3 participants as of 2016 (n = 165) showed that 73% submitted at least 1 NIH proposal since completing P3 and that 43% of these had acquired NIH funding, for a combined total of $193 million in funding awarded. The estimated rate at which participants obtained funding for their P3-developed grant application (~35%) exceeds the national annual NIH grant funding rates (~20%) by approximately 50%. This article provides the practical information needed for other institutions to implement a P3-like program and presents a cost-benefit analysis showing the advantages of doing so.

Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort

Background

Early career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group’s recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission.

Methods and findings

First-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000–2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively.

First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications—for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82–3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22–2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications.

Conclusions

Encouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2–4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.

A CTSA-based consultation service to advance research on special and underserved populations

In this report, we describe the implementation and short-term outcomes of a Special Populations Consultation Service within the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI). With the goal of increasing the quality and quantity of special population (SP) research, the UCLA CTSI Integrating Special Populations program designed a consultation service to support faculty and trainees conducting research involving one of three CTSI “special populations:” children, older adults, and/or minority; underserved; or health disparity populations. The Special Populations Consultation Service offers three types of activities: grant proposal studios, career consultations, and project reviews. UCLA CTSI faculty with appropriate content expertise serve as consultants. We evaluated this consultation model using satisfaction surveys and by quantifying funded grants and reported changes in career goals in SP research. Between 2016 and 2019, the Special Populations Consultation Service provided 59 consultations including 42 grant studios and was used by researchers at all levels from all four UCLA CTSI institutions. Recipients rated the consultations very highly. Funding success rates were 57% following K-level grant studios and 28% following R-level grant studios. Users of project and career consultations commonly attributed career accomplishments in part to their consultation experiences. The SP Consultation Service is feasible and acceptable and appears to enhance careers of investigators studying special populations.