Internal Review Protocols at Academic Institutions More than Doubles Likelihood of External Grant Funding
This article originally appeared in the Spring 2018 issue of Columbia Nursing magazine.
To boost chances of securing external research funding, Columbia Nursing investigators designed a two-part internal-review process that more than doubled the likelihood that research grant applications would be funded, and coupled it with an annual internal-funding mechanism to increase research capacity.
A five-year study of this process found that, in addition to significantly increasing the number of grants that secured funding, it produced peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and an atmosphere of transparency and collegiality that likely would not have occurred otherwise, say co-authors Elaine L. Larson, PhD, the Anna C. Maxwell Professor of Nursing Research and associate dean of scholarship and research, and Kristine M. Kulage, MPH, director, Office of Scholarship and Research Development. “Strategies such as internal funding and grant reviews help ensure that a school of nursing’s valuable time and resources are being spent on research proposals that are more likely to have higher success rates,” Larson and Kulage wrote.
In 2012, the nursing school launched a three-part process to increase its research capacity. It consisted of a two-part internalreview procedure in which faculty members, associate research scientists, postdoctoral fellows, and pre-doctoral students participated in a Specific Objectives and Aims Reviews (SOAR) Protocol, during which they presented their proposals’ specific aims to faculty members for guidance, feedback, and suggested revisions; and took part in a Mock Review Protocol, fashioned after a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study section, in which they received a real-time, presubmission peer review from experts. This effort was coupled with an internal funding opportunity for faculty members holding doctoral degrees, associate research scientists, and postdoctoral fellows to apply for Intramural Pilot Grants funded by Columbia Nursing to support the collection of preliminary data or other scholarly work for the preparation and submission of a future grant.
“Grant applications that underwent any type of internal review were more than twice as likely to be funded, compared with those that did not undergo internal review,” the co-authors wrote. The process also inspired interdisciplinary collaboration, and modeled “a professional attitude of openness and mutual support for predoctoral students,” they continued. In addition, the school invested a total of $127,376 in 19 intramural pilot-grant applications. Six of the pilot grants led to larger applications, which received more than $3 million in external funding, and 18 of the pilot grants produced 16 peer-reviewed articles and 33 presentations.
“Because of the highly competitive environment for securing grant funding, strategies to support and increase research capacity are essential for schools of nursing to develop the next generation of nurse scientists, and establish and maintain a funding base for ongoing research,” according to the article.
This study appeared in the June 2017 online edition of ScienceDirect and was published in the January-February 2018 issue of Nursing Outlook.