Explore the vast range of titles available.

The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.

Background Community Health Centers (CHCs) are a vital part of the health safety net, providing high quality care to underserved communities with complex health and social needs. Yet, despite their crucial role, CHCs operate on slim financial margins, relying in part on grant funding streams. Little is known about the role that grant requirements have in directing the functioning of CHCs. Methods We conducted qualitative thematic analysis, based on 56 semi-structured interviews of CHC leadership and staff in New York City. Results Three overarching themes described ways that CHCs are hampered by the designs and requirements of grant funding: 1) narrowness of available funding, 2) lack of access to operational funding, and 3) inability to utilize available funding to address workforce needs. Conclusions Our analysis illuminates the tension between the weighty charge placed on CHCs as key pillars of the health safety net and the inflexible grant funding mechanisms available to sustain them. Restrictive funding limits CHCs’ capacity to deliver comprehensive care and meet community needs.

Little is known whether peer reviewers use the same evaluation criteria and how they integrate the criteria into their overall judgment. This study therefore proposed two assessment styles based on theoretical perspectives and normative positions. According to the case-by-case style, referees use many and different criteria, weight criteria on a case-by-case basis, and integrate criteria in a complex, non-mechanical way into their overall judgment. According to the uniform style, referees use a small fraction of the available criteria, apply the same criteria, weight the criteria in the same way, and integrate the criteria based on simple rules (i.e., fast-and-frugal heuristics). These two styles were examined using a unique dataset from a career funding scheme that contained a comparatively large number of evaluation criteria. A heuristic (fast-and-frugal trees) and a complex procedure (logistic regression) were employed to describe how referees integrate the criteria into their overall judgment. The logistic regression predicted the referees’ overall assessment with high accuracy and slightly more accurately than the fast-and-frugal trees. Overall, the results of this study support the uniform style but also indicate that the uniform style needs to be revised as follows: referees use many criteria and integrate the criteria using complex rules. However, and most importantly, the revised style could describe most—but not all—of the referees’ judgments. Future studies should therefore examine how referees’ judgments can be characterized in those cases where the uniform style failed. Moreover, the evaluation process of referees should be studied in more empirical and theoretical detail.

Although borderline personality disorder (BPD) is prevalent, highly lethal, and involves comparable or elevated distress, societal burden, and mortality to several other mental health conditions, studies suggest that BPD research is underfunded by granting agencies in the United States. However, it remains unclear whether BPD research is similarly underfunded in Canada, especially when compared with a number of disorders with similar prevalence and lethality rates. The present study, therefore, examined whether BPD may be underfunded in Canada compared to disorders of similar lethality and prevalence (i.e., bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, eating disorders). The Canadian Institute for Health Research funding database was searched to identify all grants funded by Canadian Institute for Health Research between 1999 and 2022 with terms related to the above mental health conditions. Coders then identified whether the grants focused on BPD, bipolar disorder, psychosis, eating disorders, or none of these populations. Results indicated that both BPD and eating disorder research received fewer funded grants than bipolar disorder and psychosis research across 23 years of funding and in the past 7 years specifically. These populations also received less total grant dollars than bipolar disorder and psychosis research across 23 years of funding and psychosis research in the past 7 years specifically. BPD and eating disorder research may be underfunded in Canada, but grants for this work may also be under sought by researchers. Efforts to destigmatize these populations to encourage scholars to study them, and grant reviewers to recognize the need and impact of research on them, are needed. Bien que le trouble de la personnalité limite (TPL) soit prévalent, hautement létal et qu'il entraîne une détresse, un fardeau sociétal et une mortalité comparables ou supérieurs à ceux de plusieurs autres troubles mentaux, des études suggèrent que la recherche sur le TPL est sous-financée par les organismes subventionnaires aux États-Unis. On ne sait toutefois pas si la recherche sur le TPL est également sous-financée au Canada, surtout si on la compare à un certain nombre de troubles dont la prévalence et les taux de létalité sont similaires. La présente étude a donc cherché à déterminer si le TPL pouvait être sous-financé au Canada par rapport à des troubles dont la létalité et la prévalence sont similaires (c'est-à-dire le trouble bipolaire, les troubles psychotiques et les troubles de l'alimentation). La base de données de financement des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada a été consultée pour identifier toutes les subventions financées par les Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada entre 1999 et 2022 avec des termes liés aux troubles de santé mentale susmentionnés. Les codeurs ont ensuite déterminé si les subventions étaient axées sur le TPL, le trouble bipolaire, la psychose, les troubles de l'alimentation ou aucune de ces populations. Les résultats indiquent que la recherche sur le TPL et les troubles de l'alimentation a reçu moins de subventions que la recherche sur les troubles bipolaires et les psychoses sur l'ensemble des 23 années de financement et plus particulièrement au cours des 7 dernières années. Ces populations ont également reçu moins de subventions totales que la recherche sur les troubles bipolaires et les psychoses sur l'ensemble des 23 années de financement et que la recherche sur les psychoses au cours des 7 dernières années en particulier. La recherche sur le TPL et les troubles de l'alimentation est peut-être sous-financée au Canada, mais il se peut aussi que les chercheurs ne tentent pas suffisamment d'obtenir des subventions pour ces travaux. Des efforts sont nécessaires pour déstigmatiser ces populations afin d'encourager les chercheurs à les étudier, et pour que les évaluateurs de subventions reconnaissent la nécessité et l'impact de la recherche sur ces populations. Public Significance Statement Research focused on borderline personality disorder and eating disorders does not receive as many federal grants as research focused on bipolar disorder and psychosis, even though these groups are all common and life-threatening. Reducing stigma of BPD and eating disorder populations is necessary to encourage scholars to enter this field and grant reviewers to identify the value in research focused on these groups.

The impact of the Association of Women Surgeons (AWS) Research Grant on academic productivity is unknown. Grant applications were obtained from AWS archives. Applicant bibliometrics and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants were identified via public databases. Twenty-four recipients between 1996 and 2020 and 68 nonrecipients between 2012 and 2017 were identified. $596,700 was awarded over the 25 years. Twenty-five percent of recipients subsequently acquired NIH funding amounting to $6,611,927.00, an 885–1008% return on investment. Compared to nonrecipients, grant recipients produced a greater mean number of publications (50.6 versus 36.4; p = 0.05), had a higher h-index (15.92 versus 10.7; p = 0.01), and were cited in higher impact factor journals (6.32 versus 3.9; p = 0.02). Overall, previous AWS Research Grant recipients were more likely to become more impactful surgeon-scientists, as indicated by a higher post-award rate of NIH funding, total number of publications, and h-index than nonrecipients. •Recipients obtained more federal funding in the future than nonrecipients.•Federal monies received represented 885–1008% return on investment.•Recipients produced more publications and had a higher h-index than nonrecipients.

Background: Grant funding allocation is a complex process that in most cases relies on peer review. A recent study identified a number of challenges associated with the use of peer review in the evaluation of grant proposals. Three important issues identified were bias, burden, and conservatism, and the work concluded that further experimentation and measurement is needed to assess the performance of funding processes. Methods: We have conducted a review of international practice in the evaluation and improvement of grant funding processes in relation to bias, burden and conservatism, based on a rapid evidence assessment and interviews with research funding agencies. Results: The evidence gathered suggests that efforts so far to measure these characteristics systematically by funders have been limited. However, there are some examples of measures and approaches which could be developed and more widely applied. Conclusions: The majority of the literature focuses primarily on the application and assessment process, whereas burden, bias and conservatism can emerge as challenges at many wider stages in the development and implementation of a grant funding scheme. In response to this we set out a wider conceptualisation of the ways in which this could emerge across the funding process.

The aim of the article is to scientifically substantiate the role of modern EU financing instruments in stimulating ecological development. The research methodology is based on the content analysis of ecological development financing instruments in the EU, their comparison and scientific generalization to substantiate further priorities for the implementation of the EU strategy «European Green Deal». The authors have examined the models of management of financial resources in the EU – direct, joint and indirect management. It is found that the EU Member States and their competent authorities develop their own national programs, coordinate the selection of projects, as well as ensure the operational management of such programs and the implementation of payments. The article shows that the most used financial instrument used within the framework of the EU programs and funds for the provision of financial resources are grants. It is determined that recently in some areas of the EU policies (first of all, in regional, entrepreneurial, and innovation) such instruments as budget guarantees and bank financing instruments (loans, credit guarantees, equity investments) have been actively developing, aimed mainly at profitable and economically viable projects. In the current planned financial period from 2021 to 2027, most EU financial programs and funds have an ecological component. At the same time, a number of the EU programs are created specifically for the purposes of sustainable development, greening of production, prevention and adaptation to climate change, as well as environmental protection, including the LIFE program, the Innovation Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the Modernization Fund. The authors show that the instruments for financing ecological development in the EU cover a wide range of potential beneficiaries, which include not only government agencies and the business sector, but also research institutions and public organizations.

The financial well-being of the charity sector has important social implications. Numerous studies have analysed whether the concentration of income in a few sources increases financial vulnerability. However, few studies have systematically considered whether the type of income (grants, donation, fund-raising activities) affects the survival prospects of the charity. We extend the literature by (a) explicitly modelling the composition of sources of income, (b) allowing for short-term volatility as well as long-term survival and (c) testing alternative specifications in a nested form. We show that the usual association between income concentration per se and financial vulnerability is a specification error. Greater vulnerability is associated with dependence on grant funding, not overall concentration. Previous studies showing that concentration of income per se is problematic are picking up a proxy effect. We also show that the volatility of income streams may be an important factor in the survival of charities, but that this also varies between income sources.

In 2012, the Colorado Legislature passed the READ Act. Like many literacy policy interventions, the READ Act focused on phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency. To support the Act, the state simultaneously established the Early Literacy Grant (ELG). The ELG targeted professional development, better use of assessment, and the implementation of approved materials, along with external consultants, to support applicant schools’ fidelity of implementation of science of reading strategies. ELG is now in the sixth cohort, having accepted 151 successful applicant schools across 64 districts for a total of nearly $53 million. We leverage the multi-year, multi-cohort implementation of the grant to measure the differential effects of treatment on Colorado Measures of Academic Success reading scores, the state’s federally aligned statewide testing regimen. We do so via a series of event study models for a total sample of nearly 20,000 grade-school-year observations. We present results for the aggregate main effect of ELG participation across all treated schools and time as well as ELG Cohort and grade-specific results. We find no statistically significant positive results for ELG participation across all analyses. After the conclusion of grant support, we find negative effects primarily driven by the performance of third graders.

It is a well-known fact that the most appealing external funding for a project is grant funding. Therefore, evaluation of research proposal task needs an elaborate approach so as not to finance inconvenient projects. It is indispensable to establish a detailed study for submitted research proposals to have a clearer picture of the grant funding candidates. This study has contributed to research proposal evaluation using a multicriteria approach based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relation matrix is initially constructed to determine the relative importance of criteria based on pairwise comparisons in the presence of insufficient information about the criteria. The proposed evaluation method for grand funding allocation problem is composed of six main criteria and 24 sub-criteria. A sensitivity analysis is applied to see the robustness of the decision made.