In case you missed it, or in case you forgot, here is a list of the questions that we asked regarding the grant application review process. (Skip to the results).
Q1 - what is your career stage?
graduate student
postdoc
non-tenured (contract or non-tenured)
tenured
Q2 - which funding bodies have you applied to?
ARC
NERC
NSERC
NSF
government/industry
society/charity
Q3 - do you feel the grant review system is fair?
Yes
No
Unsure
Q4 - have you acted as a reviewer for any of the following?
ARC
NERC
NSERC
NSF
government/industry
society/charity
Q5 - if you received feedback from a funding body, was the feedback constructive (did it help you improve your grant writing)?
Yes
No
Unsure
Q6 - do you think that the decision to fund/not fund your application was consistent with the scores/feedback obtained?
Yes
No
Unsure
N/A
Q7 - did you resubmit your application the following year accounting for the advice of peer review?
Yes - received funding
Yes - did not receive funding
No
Had found other employment
Q8 - approximately how many grants have you applied for in the past 5 years?
Q9 - approximately how many grants have been successfully funded in the past 5 years?
Q10 - have you experienced any of the following in the grant peer review process?
non-expert reviews
academic factions
sex bias
bias against ECR
bias against innovation
theft of IP/ideas
other
Q11 - rank the following models in order of their perceived fairness (1-3)
single blind
double blind
open review
Q12 - when performing grant peer review are you more critical of
applications in your field of expertise
applications outside your field of expertise
N/A
Q13 - do you think feedback should be provided for
everyone
ECR's only
unsuccessful applicants only
no one
Q14 - do you think the grant peer review system can be improved?
Yes
No
Unsure
Q15 - in terms of improving grant success, rank the following in order of their perceived importance (1-5)
mentoring from successful applicants
grant writing workshops
constructive feedback/reviews
transparent process
increased guidance for reviewers
Q16 - which would you prefer
few grants with high value (>$100,000)
more grants with less value (<$100,000)
Q17 - in terms of reviewing grants, rank the following in order of perceived importance (1-5)
applicant track record
innovation/novelty
feasibility of the proposed work
perceived impact and number of papers arising from the work
number of students to be trained
Q18 - do you think deadlines should be removed from grant applications?
Yes
No
Unsure