IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0239757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice

Author

Listed:
  • Katie Meadmore
  • Kathryn Fackrell
  • Alejandra Recio-Saucedo
  • Abby Bull
  • Simon D S Fraser
  • Amanda Blatch-Jones

Abstract

Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.g., biomedical and social), and was publicised on social media. The survey collected information about decision-making approaches for research funding allocation, and covered assessment criteria, current and past practices, and considerations for improvements or future practice. A mixed methods analysis provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages of responses) and an inductive thematic framework of key experiences. Thirty-one responses were analysed, representing government-funded organisations and charities in the health sector from the UK, Europe and Australia. Four themes were extracted and provided a narrative framework. 1. The most reported decision-making approaches were external peer review, triage, and face-to-face committee meetings; 2. Key values underpinned decision-making processes. These included transparency and gaining perspectives from reviewers with different expertise (e.g., scientific, patient and public); 3. Cross-cutting challenges of the decision-making processes faced by funders included bias, burden and external limitations; 4. Evidence of variations and innovations from the most reported decision-making approaches, including proportionate peer review, number of decision-points, virtual committee meetings and sandpits (interactive workshop). Broadly similar decision-making processes were used by all funders in this survey. Findings indicated a preference for funders to adapt current decision-making processes rather than using more innovative approaches: however, there is a need for more flexibility in decision-making and support to applicants. Funders indicated the need for information and empirical evidence on innovations which would help to inform decision-making in research fund allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Katie Meadmore & Kathryn Fackrell & Alejandra Recio-Saucedo & Abby Bull & Simon D S Fraser & Amanda Blatch-Jones, 2020. "Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239757
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239757
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239757&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0239757?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & Scott R Glisson, 2013. "Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    2. David Adam, 2019. "Science funders gamble on grant lotteries," Nature, Nature, vol. 575(7784), pages 574-575, November.
    3. David Kaplan & Nicola Lacetera & Celia Kaplan, 2008. "Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-3, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    2. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    3. David G Pina & Darko Hren & Ana Marušić, 2015. "Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Eric Libby & Leon Glass, 2010. "The Calculus of Committee Composition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-8, September.
    5. Gregoire Mariethoz & Frédéric Herman & Amelie Dreiss, 2021. "Reply to the comment by Heyard et al. titled “Imaginary carrot or effective fertiliser? A rejoinder on funding and productivity”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9339-9342, November.
    6. Valdivia, Walter, 2021. "A Lottery for the Republic of Science: Chance, Merit, and Fairness in the Process of Awarding Research Grants," Working Papers 10461, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    7. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & David Irwin & Caitlin D McPartland & Joseph Travis & Sofie Reynders & Lisa A Thompson & Scott R Glisson, 2014. "The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, September.
    8. Wang, Jian & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2018. "Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1070-1083.
    9. Axel Philipps, 2022. "Research funding randomly allocated? A survey of scientists’ views on peer review and lottery," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 365-377.
    10. Richard R Snell, 2015. "Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Miriam L E Steiner Davis & Tiffani R Conner & Kate Miller-Bains & Leslie Shapard, 2020. "What makes an effective grants peer reviewer? An exploratory study of the necessary skills," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Michael R Martin & Andrea Kopstein & Joy M Janice, 2010. "An Analysis of Preliminary and Post-Discussion Priority Scores for Grant Applications Peer Reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-6, November.
    13. Daniele Rotolo & Michael Hopkins & Nicola Grassano, 2023. "Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 50-66, January.
    14. Joshua Krieger & Ramana Nanda & Ian Hunt & Aimee Reynolds & Peter Tarsa, 2022. "Scoring and Funding Breakthrough Ideas: Evidence from a Global Pharmaceutical Company," Harvard Business School Working Papers 23-014, Harvard Business School, revised Nov 2023.
    15. Gregoire Mariethoz & Frédéric Herman & Amelie Dreiss, 2021. "The imaginary carrot: no correlation between raising funds and research productivity in geosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2401-2407, March.
    16. Gemma E Derrick & Julie Bayley, 2022. "The Corona-Eye: Exploring the risks of COVID-19 on fair assessments of impact for REF2021," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 93-103.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.