Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel.
Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.d4797
复制
发表时间：
2011-09-27
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Clarke P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Graves N;Barnett AG;Clarke P
目的量化卫生与医学科研项目资助选择的随机性和成本。设计回顾性分析。澳大利亚国家卫生和医学研究委员会设立拨款审查小组。评审小组成员于2009年提交的资助计划评分。主要结果指标在考虑了评审小组成员分数的差异和不同规模评审小组的成本效益后，总是、有时和从未获得资助的资助提案的比例。结果在考虑随机变异性的情况下，620个资助项目中有59%有时没有得到资助。只有9% （n=255）的资助提案总是得到资助，61% （n=1662）从未得到资助，29% （n=788）有时得到资助。从最有效的系统有效资助的每笔赠款的额外成本为18 541澳元（11 848英镑；13 482欧元；19 343美元）。卫生和医学科学研究的资金分配成本高，而且有些随机。有许多有用的研究问题需要解决，可以改善当前的过程。
Objective To quantify randomness and cost when choosing health and medical research projects for funding. Design Retrospective analysis. Setting Grant review panels of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Participants Panel members’ scores for grant proposals submitted in 2009. Main outcome measures The proportion of grant proposals that were always, sometimes, and never funded after accounting for random variability arising from differences in panel members’ scores, and the cost effectiveness of different size assessment panels. Results 59% of 620 funded grants were sometimes not funded when random variability was taken into account. Only 9% (n=255) of grant proposals were always funded, 61% (n=1662) never funded, and 29% (n=788) sometimes funded. The extra cost per grant effectively funded from the most effective system was $A18 541 (£11 848; €13 482; $19 343). Conclusions Allocating funding for scientific research in health and medicine is costly and somewhat random. There are many useful research questions to be addressed that could improve current processes.