In case you missed it, or in case you forgot, here is a list of the questions that we asked regarding the grant application review process. (Skip to the results).

Q1 - what is your career stage?

• graduate student

• postdoc

• non-tenured (contract or non-tenured)

• tenured

Q2 - which funding bodies have you applied to?

• ARC

• NERC

• NSERC

• NSF

• government/industry

• society/charity

Q3 - do you feel the grant review system is fair?

• Yes

• No

• Unsure

Q4 - have you acted as a reviewer for any of the following?

• ARC

• NERC

• NSERC

• NSF

• government/industry

• society/charity

Q5 - if you received feedback from a funding body, was the feedback constructive (did it help you improve your grant writing)?

• Yes

• No

• Unsure

Q6 - do you think that the decision to fund/not fund your application was consistent with the scores/feedback obtained?

• Yes

• No

• Unsure

• N/A

Q7 - did you resubmit your application the following year accounting for the advice of peer review?

• Yes - received funding

• Yes - did not receive funding

• No

• Had found other employment

Q8 - approximately how many grants have you applied for in the past 5 years?

Q9 - approximately how many grants have been successfully funded in the past 5 years?

Q10 - have you experienced any of the following in the grant peer review process?

• non-expert reviews

• academic factions

• sex bias

• bias against ECR

• bias against innovation

• theft of IP/ideas

• other

Q11 - rank the following models in order of their perceived fairness (1-3)

• single blind

• double blind

• open review

Q12 - when performing grant peer review are you more critical of

• applications in your field of expertise

• applications outside your field of expertise

• N/A

Q13 - do you think feedback should be provided for

• everyone

• ECR's only

• unsuccessful applicants only

• no one

Q14 - do you think the grant peer review system can be improved?

• Yes

• No

• Unsure

Q15 - in terms of improving grant success, rank the following in order of their perceived importance (1-5)

• mentoring from successful applicants

• grant writing workshops

• constructive feedback/reviews

• transparent process

• increased guidance for reviewers

Q16 - which would you prefer

• few grants with high value (>$100,000)

• more grants with less value (<$100,000)

Q17 - in terms of reviewing grants, rank the following in order of perceived importance (1-5)

• applicant track record

• innovation/novelty

• feasibility of the proposed work

• perceived impact and number of papers arising from the work

• number of students to be trained

Q18 - do you think deadlines should be removed from grant applications?

• Yes

• No

• Unsure

#grants #academic #peerreview #earlycareer #NSERC #funding