• Jasmine Janes, Manu Saunders, Sean Tomlinson

Questions asked in the 'making grant review process better' survey


thoughtful survey monkey

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

#grants #academic #peerreview #earlycareer #NSERC #funding