An output evaluation of a health research foundation's enhanced grant review process for new investigators

• Main Authors: Gregory W. Hammond (Author), Mê-Linh Lê (Author), Tannis Novotny (Author), Stephanie P. B. Caligiuri (Author), Grant N. Pierce (Author), John Wade (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2017-06-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12961-017-0220-x; 1478-4505
• Keywords: Enhanced grant review process; New investigator research funding; Output evaluation; Research productivity; Bibliometric analysis; Effect of health research funding; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: Health Research Policy and Systems, Vol 15, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2017)

Abstract Background We assessed the ability of the Manitoba Medical Service Foundation (MMSF, a small not-for-profit foundation affiliated with Manitoba Blue Cross) to determine the best candidates for selection to receive research funding support among new researchers applying to the Research Operating Grants Programme (ROGP). Methods Using bibliometric and grants funding analyses, we retrospectively compared indices of academic outputs from five cohorts of MMSF-funded and not MMSF-funded applicants to the annual MMSF ROGP over 2008 to 2012, from 1 to 5 years after having received evaluation decisions from the MMSF enhanced grant review process. Results Those researchers funded by the MMSF competition (MMSF-funded) had a statistically significant greater number of publications, a higher h-index and greater national Tri-Council (TC) funding, versus those not selected for funding (not MMSF-funded). MMSF-funded applicants and the Manitoba research community have created a strong and rapid (within 1 to 5 years of receiving the MMSF grant) local economic return on investment associated with the MMSF ROGP that supports new investigators, of approximately nine-fold for TC grants by the principal investigator, and of 34-fold for the principal investigator on collaborative (total) TC grants. Conclusions The use of small amounts of seed money for competitive research grants at early stages of an MMSF-funded applicant's career correlates with future short-term success of that applicant. The ability to correctly select promising candidates who subsequently demonstrate greater academic performance after the MMSF funding shows the selection process and the ROGP to be of merit. Multiple components may have contributed to this outcome, including a direct presentation and interview process of the candidate with five-person selection subcommittees, plus an assessment by an external reviewer (the enhanced grant review process). The selection methods used here may add value to the research grant selection processes of new researchers.