Developing the Librarians' Role in Supporting Grant Applications and Reducing Waste in Research: Outcomes From a Literature Review and Survey in the NIHR Research Design Service

ABSTRACT

Librarians and information specialists' involvement during the development of grant applications for external funding can save researchers' time, provide specialist support, and contribute to reducing avoidable waste in research. This article presents a survey of information specialists working for the National Institute for Health Research's Research Design Service within English applied health services research and a scoping review to identify other examples of librarians supporting grant applications. The survey found that support included: verifying proposed research has not already been performed; searching literature to provide background for the project; and advising on or writing systematic review methods. The scoping review found three examples where librarians were involved: in writing sections of the application; conducting reviews, and becoming a co-applicant. We recommend librarians engage with researchers by checking whether search requests are to support an application and by becoming familiar with resources and techniques to support grant proposal development.     

A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications

Combining different data sets with information on grant and fellowship applications submitted to two renowned funding agencies, we are able to compare their funding decisions (award and rejection) with scientometric performance indicators across two fields of science (life sciences and social sciences). The data sets involve 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life sciences. In both fields, awarded applicants perform on average better than all rejected applicants. If only the most preeminent rejected applicants are considered in both fields, they score better than the awardees on citation impact. With regard to productivity we find differences between the fields. While the awardees in life sciences outperform on average the most preeminent rejected applicants, the situation is reversed in social sciences.     

Selection committee membership: Service or self-service

Project funding is an increasingly important mode of research funding. The rationale is that through project funding new fields and new themes can be supported more effectively. Furthermore, project funding improves competition, which is expected to select the better research projects and researchers. However, project funding has a price, as it requires researchers to invest time in reviewing proposals, and to participate in selection committees. In that perspective, selection committee membership can be seen as a service to the scholarly community.However, what do committee members themselves get from membership? In this paper we show that committee members in average are more successful in grant applications than other principle investigators, and this is not explained by performance differences. The findings suggest that committee membership is not only service, but also self-service.     

The Research Funding Service: a model for expanded library services

Traditionally, libraries have provided a modest amount of information about grants and funding opportunities to researchers in need of research funding. Ten years ago, the University of Washington (UW) Health Sciences Libraries and Information Center joined in a cooperative effort with the School of Medicine to develop a complete, library-based grant and funding service for health sciences researchers called the Research Funding Service. The library provided space, access to the library collection, equipment, and electronic resources, and the School of Medicine funded staff and operations. The range of services now includes individual consultation appointments, an extensive Web site, classes on funding database searching and writing grant applications, a discussion series that frequently hosts guest speakers, a monthly newsletter with funding opportunities of interest to the six health sciences schools, extensive files on funding sources, and referral services.     

Administration of Grant Funds-the Project Approach

Grant funds, which are of considerable importance in collection-building, require special care in administration. The "project approach" enables the librarian to employ the efficiencies of project management by concentrating on a management unit of appropriate size. Other advantages of this approach include participation of the user community, visibility, ease in reporting and control, and directivity in the use of supplementary funding. The principle may be extended to grant proposal writing, where it is particularly useful in developing proposals tailored to the known granting patterns of agencies.     

What makes or breaks competitive research proposals? A mixed-methods analysis of research grant evaluation reports

The evaluation of grant proposals is an essential aspect of competitive research funding. Funding bodies and agencies rely in many instances on external peer reviewers for grant assessment. Most of the research available is about quantitative aspects of this assessment, and there is little evidence from qualitative studies. We used a combination of machine learning and qualitative analysis methods to analyse the reviewers' comments in evaluation reports from 3667 grant applications to the Initial Training Networks (ITN) of the Marie Curie Actions under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). Our results show that the reviewers' comments for each evaluation criterion were aligned with the Action's prespecified criteria and that the evaluation outcome was more influenced by the proposals’ weaknesses than by their strengths.     

Does grant funding foster research impact? Evidence from France

Policymakers are interested in assessing the effectiveness of the competitive grant funding model in producing impactful research. In the French context, we compare the impact of scientific articles supported by competitive grants with the impact of articles not supported by grants using a probabilistic matching procedure. We rely on publication acknowledgments to retrieve funding information and on citation data to assess the articles’ impact. We find that articles supported by competitive grants receive more citations than articles not supported by grants in the long run, while the difference is not significant in the short run. We find heterogeneity across fields.     

Creating a departmental culture for communication grants

Extramural funding to support communication research influences and is influenced by the culture of our discipline, universities, and departments. Both the National Communication Association and the International Communication Association have established closer ties to funding agencies and encouraged members' grant writing pursuits through mentorship and convention programs, newsletter columns, and publicity. Universities vary in how much support they have available as infrastructure to assist in the submission and administration of grants. Some institutions facilitate extramural funding endeavors through mentoring programs, university-wide research centers, sharing of indirect costs, and space. Department cultures, too, vary in the resources available to support grants. Departments in many ways have the most direct effects on grant-supporting cultures. In addition to activities indicated for the discipline and university, departments can build a grant culture by recognizing grant writing in their personnel practices, creating systems for rewarding and supporting grant activities, and having policies in place for the many related issues (e.g., release time, indirect cost sharing, research assistants). Finally, the interpersonal culture, whether colleagues recognize and support grants, plays a major role in individual pursuit of, and satisfaction with, seeking extramural funding to support communication research.     

Creating a departmental culture for communication grants

Extramural funding to support communication research influences and is influenced by the culture of our discipline, universities, and departments. Both the National Communication Association and the International Communication Association have established closer ties to funding agencies and encouraged members' grant writing pursuits through mentorship and convention programs, newsletter columns, and publicity. Universities vary in how much support they have available as infrastructure to assist in the submission and administration of grants. Some institutions facilitate extramural funding endeavors through mentoring programs, university-wide research centers, sharing of indirect costs, and space. Department cultures, too, vary in the resources available to support grants. Departments in many ways have the most direct effects on grant-supporting cultures. In addition to activities indicated for the discipline and university, departments can build a grant culture by recognizing grant writing in their personnel practices, creating systems for rewarding and supporting grant activities, and having policies in place for the many related issues (e.g., release time, indirect cost sharing, research assistants). Finally, the interpersonal culture, whether colleagues recognize and support grants, plays a major role in individual pursuit of, and satisfaction with, seeking extramural funding to support communication research.     

Comparing Digital Archaeological Repositories: tDAR Versus Open Context

In the last decade, two online archaeology data repositories, Digital Antiquity's The Digital Archeological Record (tDAR) and the Alexandria Archive Institute's (AAI) Open Context, have emerged in the United States as key players in the development of technology and Web platforms for preservation and public online access to archaeological research data. The need for these services has intensified since 2011, in the wake of U.S. federal open access mandates and funding agency data management plan requirements for grant applications. Through a comparison of selected features of tDAR and Open Context, this article highlights similarities and key differences in their designs, data management policies, and practices, and provides guidance to subject specialist librarians and others who advise archaeological researchers about how these differences can impact the suitability of each repository for specific data characteristics.     

National Library of Medicine resource grants: application and review.

National Library of Medicine resource grants provide assistance in developing information services or activities, which are then made available to others. The resource grant program was redefined in 1989 to establish information access grants and information systems grants. The preparation of a resource grant proposal is discussed, with examples included for some sections. All applicants must use the PHS 398 application form, which is geared to research grants. The review process and reapplication are described. Problems with National Institutes of Health grant proposals that have been reported in the literature are discussed.     

Costing the library services. Cairns Library: a casestudy

In the presentclimate libraries have to adopt a business approach to funding submissions; detailed managementinformation must be produced in support of expenditure and to ensure that the services are cost-effective. In addition to the grant from its parent body (the Faculty of Clinical Medicine,University of Oxford), the Cairns Library obtains funding from five other bodies, includingNational Health Service Hospital Trusts. The Cairns Library has introdu ies anduser education. The costs for each package have been apportioned to the funding bodies on thebasis of the number of registered users from each body.     

Financial support at the time of paper acceptance: a survey of three medical journals

The author‐pays model (open access publishing funded through author charges) is dependent on authors having access to financial support at the time their research papers are accepted. We conducted an author survey to determine the availability of external funding for publication charges at different points in the research process. Of the 377/524 (72%) who responded, 62% (233/377) received external funding to support their study, but with notable differences between journals. Only 25% (95/377) could withdraw funds from a grant at the time of paper acceptance. The grant was closed at this time for almost half (105/233, 45%) of those who were externally funded. Non‐externally funded research was largely supported through departmental resources (56%, 80/144) or carrying out research in own time (63%, 91/144). To conclude, a large proportion of published research is not externally funded, and many funded researchers do not have access to financial support at the time their paper is accepted for publication.     

Are NIH-funded publications fulfilling the proposed research? An examination of concept-matchedness between NIH research grants and their supported publications

The conceptual connections between scientific grants and publications are important, yet often overlooked in quantitative studies of science. An analysis of such connections could offer important insights into how science is conducted by individual researchers and research teams under the social and economic conditions of science. This study aims to offer the first piece of evidence towards this endeavor by analyzing the ratio of keyword matchedness between accepted NIH research grants from 2008 to 2015 and their funded publications. By applying linear regression method, we identified and examined three identified predictors of the outcome: 1) the funding rate of an NIH research program in a specific year, 2) the year difference between grant and publication, and 3) the funding size of a grant. Our findings suggest that these three factors contribute to the outcome in different capacities. Moreover, all of them may have different performances in individual funding programs, which highlights the importance of understanding the differences among individual funding mechanisms.     

How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study

The universalism norm of the ethos of science requires that contributions to science are not excluded because of the contributors’ gender, nationality, social status, or other irrelevant criteria. Here, a generalized latent variable modeling approach is presented that grant program managers at a funding organization can use in order to obtain indications of potential sources of bias in their peer review process (such as the applicants’ gender). To implement the method, the data required are the number of approved and number of rejected applicants for grants among different groups (for example, women and men or natural and social scientists). Using the generalized latent variable modeling approach indications of potential sources of bias can be examined not only for grant peer review but also for journal peer review.     

Using Creativity

Summary

The purpose of this article is to provide readers with creative methods for procuring funding for building an electronic information literacy instruction classroom. Using the Library Instruction Program at Niagara County Community College as a case study, the authors explain how grant funding was obtained to create a 24-computer lab classroom to teach students how to search for information effectively. A complete explanation of instruction provided to grant participants is also included. This article is particularly useful for librarians working with limited resources and for instruction librarians responsible for teaching students how to search for information in electronic form effectively.     

Training for Librarians: An Analysis of the Institute of Museum and Library Services Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program

Abstract

The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), a major funding agency for museums and libraries in the United States, offers a variety of grant programs. The Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program (LB21) is one of the IMLS programs that focuses on training. Through analyzing awarded grants from 2003 to 2018, this project investigated the grant award distribution among different organizations and analyzed trends over time. Results indicated that researchers from higher education institutions received most of the grant money, and were relevantly concentrated among these institutions. Results for higher education grants in recent years also showed that collaborative projects among different institutions generally received large grants. Some recurring themes for recently awarded grants were also discussed. Findings from this project provide an overview of LB21 grant distribution and themes, and helps librarians and administrators identify training needs, and inspiring new grant ideas.     

Bibilometrics Services and the Academic Library: Meeting the Emerging Needs of the Campus Community

The increasing importance of research assessment is but one factor within the ever-changing scholarly communication landscape that is challenging libraries to develop new services to serve the needs of their academic communities. Institutional budget allocations, grant funding, and faculty tenure and promotion increasingly depend on performance indicators, including bibliometrics such as citation counts, impact factors, the h-index, and other quantitative measurements of research output. With their longstanding expertise in collecting, categorizing, and analyzing data, not to mention their familiarity with scholarly databases and indexes tracking cited references, librarians are well qualified to meet the emerging demand for bibliometrics services.     

Ungendered writing: Writing styles are unlikely to account for gender differences in funding rates in the natural and technical sciences

Academia has traditionally faced a substantial gender gap in staff positions and career path progression. Women do not advance up the academic career ladder in the same rate as men, with evidence of gender bias in hiring, earnings, funding, and recognition by means of prestigious awards.In this study we focus on gender differences in funding applications. Multiple factors have been proposed as potentially underlying mechanisms creating differences in funding rates between men and women, including bias in peer review processes and differences in language use. In this study we use a set of 1560 full-text applications in the natural and technical sciences that were subjected to a double-blind review process at a Danish private funder to analyse gendered writing as a potential factor causing differences in funding rates. Reproducing analyses from previous studies that found significant differences in writing styles, we analyse patterns in the use of positive words, levels of readability, concreteness and sentiment. Unlike previous studies, we only find minimal differences in writing style between the sexes. We conclude that writing styles are unlikely to account for skewed funding patterns and suggest ways in which funding programmes can be designed to provide fair opportunities to all applicants.     

Private foundation funding of applied communication research

Communication researchers increasingly have a primed and attentive audience in private foundations. Yet most foundations are quite dissimilar to the types of organizations that we as communication scholars know and understand. Here we discuss private foundation funding for applied communication research, including how funding priorities are set, and how potential grantees may position themselves for foundation funds. In doing so, we focus on five norms that characterize American private foundations and their program staff: (1) social betterment, (2) organizational interdependency, (3) personal commitment, (4) future orientation, and (5) external generalizability. How well you and your proposal match up with these norms will affect your success with private foundations.