IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i5d10.1007_s11192-025-05330-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unsuccessful research funding applications: a scoping review of causes and impacts on Australian researchers and research projects

Author

Listed:
  • Olumide A. Odeyemi

    (Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University
    University of Tasmania)

  • Yvonne Parry

    (Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University
    University College London)

  • Shahid Ullah

    (Flinders University)

  • Nina Sivertsen

    (Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University
    UiT Arctic University of Norway)

Abstract

Research funding plays a significant role in achieving innovative development in health, education, and society. On average only 10–20% of research funding applications in Australia are successful. There is a paucity of studies on the causes and impacts of unsuccessful research funding applications on Australian researchers and research projects. A scoping review of primary studies and grey literature published between 1980 and 2022 from databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), OVID, and Google Scholar was conducted. Five studies published between 1992 and 2016 were identified, among which four focused on early career researchers and one focused on female academics. The main themes include causes of unsuccessful research funding applications and the impacts on research projects and Australian researchers. The causes of unsuccessful research funding applications include researchers’ profiles, funding application processes, institutional support, and government involvement. The impacts of unsuccessful research funding applications on Australian researchers include job security, wasted time and effort, and discouragement. The impacts on research projects include abandonment, resubmission to the same or different funding body, and proceeding with the research project. There is a need for further studies on researchers’ coping strategies and the institutional support available to researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Olumide A. Odeyemi & Yvonne Parry & Shahid Ullah & Nina Sivertsen, 2025. "Unsuccessful research funding applications: a scoping review of causes and impacts on Australian researchers and research projects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(5), pages 2799-2828, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05330-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05330-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05330-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-025-05330-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Sohn, 2020. "Secrets to writing a winning grant," Nature, Nature, vol. 577(7788), pages 133-135, January.
    2. Vincent Larivière & Etienne Vignola-Gagné & Christian Villeneuve & Pascal Gélinas & Yves Gingras, 2011. "Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec university professors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 483-498, June.
    3. Aldieri, Luigi & Kotsemir, Maxim & Vinci, Concetto Paolo, 2018. "The impact of research collaboration on academic performance: An empirical analysis for some European countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 13-30.
    4. Upali W. Jayasinghe & Herbert W. Marsh & Nigel Bond, 2003. "A multilevel cross‐classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 166(3), pages 279-300, October.
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 226-238.
    6. Mathias Wullum Nielsen & Carter Walter Bloch & Londa Schiebinger, 2018. "Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 726-734, October.
    7. He, Zi-Lin & Geng, Xue-Song & Campbell-Hunt, Colin, 2009. "Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 306-317, March.
    8. Margaret C. Hardy & Adrian Carter & Nikola Bowden, 2016. "What do postdocs need to succeed? A survey of current standing and future directions for Australian researchers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Liv Langfeldt & Mats Benner & Gunnar Sivertsen & Ernst H. Kristiansen & Dag W. Aksnes & Siri Brorstad Borlaug & Hanne Foss Hansen & Egil Kallerud & Antti Pelkonen, 2015. "Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 661-675.
    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. Yun Liu & Mengya Zhang & Gupeng Zhang & Xiongxiong You, 2022. "Scientific elites versus other scientists: who are better at taking advantage of the research collaboration network?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3145-3166, June.
    2. Marsh, Herbert W. & Jayasinghe, Upali W. & Bond, Nigel W., 2011. "Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 167-180.
    3. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2019. "A gender analysis of top scientists’ collaboration behavior: evidence from Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 405-418, August.
    4. Jordi Duch & Xiao Han T Zeng & Marta Sales-Pardo & Filippo Radicchi & Shayna Otis & Teresa K Woodruff & Luís A Nunes Amaral, 2012. "The Possible Role of Resource Requirements and Academic Career-Choice Risk on Gender Differences in Publication Rate and Impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    6. Abdelghani Maddi & Yves Gingras, 2021. "Gender Diversity In Research Teams And Citation Impact In Economics And Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1381-1404, December.
    7. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2008. "How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 280-287.
    8. Zhang, Mengya & Zhang, Gupeng & Liu, Yun & Zhai, Xiaorong & Han, Xinying, 2020. "Scientists’ genders and international academic collaboration: An empirical study of Chinese universities and research institutes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    9. Tahereh Dehdarirad & Anna Villarroya & Maite Barrios, 2015. "Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 795-812, June.
    10. Paul Siu Fai Yip & Yunyu Xiao & Clifford Long Hin Wong & Terry Kit Fong Au, 2020. "Is there gender bias in research grant success in social sciences?: Hong Kong as a case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Bol, Thijs & de Vaan, Mathijs & van de Rijt, Arnout, 2022. "Gender-equal funding rates conceal unequal evaluations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    12. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2019. "The collaboration behavior of top scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 215-232, January.
    13. Wullum Nielsen, Mathias & Börjeson, Love, 2019. "Gender diversity in the management field: Does it matter for research outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1617-1632.
    14. 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.
    15. Lu, Wei & Ren, Yan & Huang, Yong & Bu, Yi & Zhang, Yuehan, 2021. "Scientific collaboration and career stages: An ego-centric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    16. Duk Hee Lee & Il Won Seo & Ho Chull Choe & Hee Dae Kim, 2012. "Collaboration network patterns and research performance: the case of Korean public research institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 925-942, June.
    17. Junwan Liu & Xiaoyun Gong & Shuo Xu & Chenchen Huang, 2024. "Understanding the relationship between team diversity and the innovative performance in research teams using decision tree algorithms: evidence from artificial intelligence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(12), pages 7805-7831, December.
    18. Qianshuo Liu & David Pérez-Castrillo & Inés Macho-Stadler & Albert Banal-Estañol, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    19. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3543-3575, June.
    20. Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Papagni, Erasmo & Sapio, Alessandro, 2013. "Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-36.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05330-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.