Please reload

Recent Posts

An update on Echo's separation anxiety

October 30, 2019

1/6
Please reload

Featured Posts

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Please reload

Follow me