Explore the vast range of titles available.

The need to reform the way in which research is undertaken is clear, with reducing research bureaucracy and waste at the forefront of this issue for the UK government, funding organisations, higher education institutions and wider research community. The aim of this study was to describe researchers’ experiences of the time, effort and burden involved in funding processes–namely applying for research funding and fulfilling reporting requirements. This was an in-depth qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with researchers who had experience applying for funding and/or completing reporting requirements for a UK health and social care research funder between January 2018 and June 2021. Following thematic analysis, five key themes were identified describing researcher experiences of key issues around time, efforts and burden associated with funding processes. These themes encompassed (1) issues with the current funding model for health and social care research, (2) time and effort involved in funding processes, (3) the need for a streamlined end-to-end process, (4) implications for work-life balance, and (5) addressing the need for better support and communication. The findings from this study describe researcher experiences of tasks in the research pathway that currently take considerable time and effort. It was clear that whilst some of this time and effort is considered necessary, some is exacerbated by inefficient and ineffective processes, such as perceived under-funding of research or lack of clarity with regards to funder expectations. This in turn contributes to unnecessary researcher burden, research waste and negative research culture. Better investment in health and social care research and in the researchers themselves who design and deliver the research, alongside improvements in transparency, streamlining and research support could ensure a more positive research culture, and improve the quality of funded research.

ObjectiveTo explore researchers’ experiences of funding processes, the effort and burden involved in applying for funding, obtaining funding and/or fulfilling reporting requirements with a UK health and social care research funder.Design/SettingA cross-sectional online survey study with open (free-text) and closed questions (August to November 2021).ParticipantsResearchers with experience of applying for/obtaining funding and/or experience of fulfilling reporting requirements for UK health and social care research funded between January 2018 and June 2021.ResultsThe survey was completed by 182 researchers, of which 176 had experience with applying for/obtaining funding, and 143 had experience with fulfilling reporting requirements during the timeframe. The majority of the 176 respondents (58%) completed between 7 and 13 key processes in order to submit an application and 69% felt that it was critically important to undertake these key processes. Respondents (n=143) reported submitting an average of 17 reports as part of research monitoring to a range of organisations (eg, funders, Higher Education Institutions). However, only 33% of respondents felt it was critically important to provide the requested reporting information to the different organisations. Thematic analysis of free-text questions on application and reporting identified themes relating to process inefficiencies including streamlining and alignment of systems, lack of understanding of processes including a need for improved communication and feedback from organisations with clear explanations about what information is needed, when and why, the support required by respondents and the time, effort and impact on workload and well-being.ConclusionsThrough this study, we were able to identify funding processes that are considered by some to be effortful, but necessary, as well as those that were perceived as unnecessary, complex and repetitive, and may waste some researchers time and effort and impact on well-being. Possible solutions to increase efficiency and enhance value in these processes were identified.

Introduction Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom. Methods Realist synthesis of peer-review publications and grey literature reporting interventions in peer review for research funding. Results We analysed 96 publications and 36 website sources. Sixty publications enabled us to extract stakeholder-specific context-mechanism-outcomes configurations (CMOCs) for 50 interventions, which formed the basis of our synthesis. Shorter applications, reviewer and applicant training, virtual funding panels, enhanced decision models, institutional submission quotas, applicant training in peer review and grant-writing reduced interrater variability, increased relevance of funded research, reduced time taken to write and review applications, promoted increased investment into innovation, and lowered cost of panels. Conclusions Reports of 50 interventions in different areas of peer review provide useful guidance on ways of solving common issues with the peer review process. Evidence of the broader impact of these interventions on the research ecosystem is still needed, and future research should aim to identify processes that consistently work to improve peer review across funders and research contexts.

Background Research Development Awards (RDAs), also referred to as seed funding or development grants, are widely used by research funding organisations to support early-stage research activity, collaboration, and capacity building. Despite their widespread use across disciplines and funding systems, evidence on their purpose and outcomes remains fragmented, limiting opportunities for cross-funder learning and evidence-informed funding decisions. This review synthesises the evidence on RDAs across disciplinary and geographical contexts, examining their intended purpose, benefits, challenges, and contribution within wider research funding ecosystems. Methods A scoping review methodology was undertaken due to the conceptual and methodological diversity of the literature. The search strategy was limited to the last ten years (2015-2025) and included UK and international academic and grey literature. Searches were conducted in Scopus and Web of Science on 9 May 2025, with supplementary searching using Google Scholar, Sci-Space, and citation tracking of key articles. Data were extracted and synthesised across five research questions addressing the purpose, context, benefits, challenges, and outcomes of RDAs. Results A total of 998 records were identified, of which 102 articles met the eligibility criteria and included for full extraction. The evidence described RDAs as flexible, early-stage mechanisms designed to enable collaboration, build research capacity, and support future funding opportunities. RDAs were particularly valued for fostering partnerships, supporting community-engaged and interdisciplinary research. However, recurrent challenges included short award duration, limited funding, misalignment with traditional evaluation metrics, and difficulties evidencing longer-term or relational outcomes. Sustained impact was frequently contingent on follow-on funding and supportive institutional contexts. Conclusion RDAs function most effectively as enabling components within wider funding ecosystems rather than as stand-alone interventions. Their value lies in supporting readiness, relationship-building, and pathway creation, often beyond the life of the award. This review provides a cross-disciplinary foundation to support more transparent, evidence-informed design and evaluation of RDAs.

Background Artificial Intelligence (AI) is at the forefront of today's technological revolution, enhancing efficiency in many organisations and sectors. However, in some research environments, its adoption is tempered by the risks AI poses to data protection, ethics, and research integrity. For research funding organisations (RFOs), although there is interest in the application of AI to boost productivity, there is also uncertainty around AI's utility and its safe integration into organisational systems and processes. The scoping review explored: 'What does the evidence say about the current and emerging use of AI?'; 'What are the potential benefits of AI for RFOs?' and 'What are the considerations and risks of AI for RFOs?' Methods A scoping review was undertaken with no study, language, or field limits. Due to the rapidly evolving AI field, searches were limited to the last three years (2022-2024). Four databases were searched for academic and grey literature in February 2024 (including 13 funding and professional research organisation websites). A classification framework captured the utility and potential, and considerations and risks of AI for RFOs. Results 122 eligible articles revealed that current and emerging AI solutions could potentially benefit RFOs by enhancing data processes, administration, research insights, operational management, and strategic decision-making. These solutions ranged from AI algorithms to data management platforms, frameworks, guidelines, and business models. However, several considerations and risks need to be addressed before RFOs can successfully integrate AI (e.g., improving data quality, regulating ethical use, data science training). Conclusion While RFOs could potentially benefit from a breadth of AI-driven solutions to improve operations, decision-making and data management, there is a need to assess organisational 'AI readiness'. Although technological advances could be the solution there is a need to address AI accountability, governance and ethics, address societal impact, and the risks to the research funding landscape.

F1000Research is proud to announce the new collaborative agreement between the Research on Research, Policy & Culture Gateway and the online repository for research on research (RoR) activity, the Research on Research Registry & Hub. This collaboration aims to connect scholars and organisations in the growing RoR discipline (the study of research practices also referred to as 'meta-research' or 'science of science'), facilitating knowledge exchange and research transparency through project registration and open publication of outputs.

IntroductionThe challenges of COVID-19 have exacerbated the burden of healthcare on the NHS. Cardiac care after discharge from the Emergency Department (ED) required patients to see their GP to initiate specialist pathways. Increased waits & difficulty in seeing primary care physicians led to delays, dissatisfaction, poor patient experience and potential risks to long-term health.A front-end cardiology service was developed with two elements: 1) In-hours Front End cardiology (IHFE) (0800–1700), 2) Out of Hours Front-end cardiology (OOHFE). This novel service was created to deliver a rapid cardiac opinion thus reducing waiting times and improving patient experience. This service encouraged ED physicians to refer directly to a Cardiology response team (CRT) in hours and using a bespoke digital referral system out of hours.MethodsPatients referred to Cardiology outpatient services were reviewed retrospectively. The patients who had presented to ED with same symptoms within the past 12 months were included in the Pre-front end (PreFE) group (n=100). Demographic information was collected as well as ED attendance date, clinic date, presenting complaint, investigations required and time to completion of investigations. These were compared to the cohort of patients in the post front end group (PostFE) which included patients seen by FE Cardiology service between the period of July 2020 and January 2022 (n=169).Results:100 patients (43 males) were included in the Pre-front end group, with presenting symptoms of chest pain (56%), palpitations (29%), pre-syncope (8%), and dyspnea (7%). 169 patients (87 males) were included in the post-front end group, with presenting symptoms of chest pain (54%), palpitation (40%), pre-syncope (3%), and dyspnea (3%). In the PreFE group the averages time to completed episode since referral was 129 days compared to 39 days in the PostFE group. 50 % of patients referred were safely discharged following review without the need for further investigation. There was a 90-day saving i.e., a 70% reduction in completion of patient episode.Abstract 179 Table 1Table showing time to first investigations and time to completed episode in Pre-FE and Post-FE groupsConclusionsThe 24/7 Front-end model has been a significant success in supporting cardiac patients presenting to the ED. Times to specialist review, patient investigations, diagnosis and treatment have been reduced by 70%. There was no appreciable difference between the IHFE and OOHFE demonstrating that 24/7 support for ED was achievable. We have seen major benefits by reducing Times to specialist review, patient investigations, diagnosis and treatment.Conflict of Interestnil

The need to reform the way in which research is undertaken is clear, with reducing research bureaucracy and waste at the forefront of this issue for the UK government, funding organisations, higher education institutions and wider research community. The aim of this study was to describe researchers' experiences of the time, effort and burden involved in funding processes-namely applying for research funding and fulfilling reporting requirements. This was an in-depth qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with researchers who had experience applying for funding and/or completing reporting requirements for a UK health and social care research funder between January 2018 and June 2021. Following thematic analysis, five key themes were identified describing researcher experiences of key issues around time, efforts and burden associated with funding processes. These themes encompassed (1) issues with the current funding model for health and social care research, (2) time and effort involved in funding processes, (3) the need for a streamlined end-to-end process, (4) implications for work-life balance, and (5) addressing the need for better support and communication. The findings from this study describe researcher experiences of tasks in the research pathway that currently take considerable time and effort. It was clear that whilst some of this time and effort is considered necessary, some is exacerbated by inefficient and ineffective processes, such as perceived under-funding of research or lack of clarity with regards to funder expectations. This in turn contributes to unnecessary researcher burden, research waste and negative research culture. Better investment in health and social care research and in the researchers themselves who design and deliver the research, alongside improvements in transparency, streamlining and research support could ensure a more positive research culture, and improve the quality of funded research.

Santa doesn't know your name, all he can say is \"Hi little boy or girl, what's your name?\" JESUS says \"Cast all your cares on me for I care for you.\" JESUS makes new life, mends wounded hearts, repairs broken homes and builds mansions.