Hume Keith M, Giladi Aviram M, Chung Kevin C
Arlington Heights, Ill.; and Ann Arbor, Mich. From the American Society of Plastic Surgeons; and the Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Feb;135(2):429e-435e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000904.
Federal research funding is decreasing, forcing specialty organizations to have an increasingly important position in developing and fostering research. As the research and innovation arm of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, The Plastic Surgery Foundation has a key role in supporting promising plastic surgery research. Understanding the grant review process and factors that contribute to funding well-written grant funding applications is essential for aspiring academic surgeons.
All research grant applications submitted to The Plastic Surgery Foundation in 2012 and 2013 were evaluated. Each reviewer comment was assessed independently by two study team members and classified into key weakness categories. The chi-square test was used to compare results between funded and unfunded grants. Linear regression identified which critique elements corresponded to changes in scores, and logistic regression identified elements that predicted funding.
The authors analyzed 1764 comments from 240 applications. Of these, 55 received funding. Funded grants had significantly fewer reviewer comments in four of five weakness categories. As expected, funded grants received better (lower) scores. Concerns in the categories of plan for execution and other elements/grantsmanship significantly affected score and odds of funding.
Ensuring that a grant addresses all required elements is important for receiving a low reviewer score. Our study demonstrates that plan for execution and grantsmanship influence reviewer scoring more than others. Investigators must clearly address items associated with conducting their experiments and performing the analysis. Investigators must also give equal attention to elements of overall quality and completeness to optimize chances of funding.
联邦研究资金正在减少，这迫使专业组织在开展和促进研究方面发挥越来越重要的作用。作为美国整形外科医师协会的研究与创新部门，整形外科基金会在支持有前景的整形外科研究方面发挥着关键作用。对于有抱负的学术外科医生来说，了解资助评审过程以及有助于资助撰写良好的资助申请的因素至关重要。
对2012年和2013年提交给整形外科基金会的所有研究资助申请进行评估。两名研究团队成员独立评估每条评审意见，并将其归类为关键弱点类别。采用卡方检验比较获得资助和未获得资助的项目之间的结果。线性回归确定哪些批评要素与分数变化相对应，逻辑回归确定预测资助的要素。
作者分析了来自240份申请的1764条意见。其中，55份获得了资助。在五个弱点类别中的四个类别中，获得资助的项目的评审意见明显较少。正如预期的那样，获得资助的项目得分更高（更低）。执行计划和其他要素/资助技巧类别中的问题显著影响得分和资助几率。
确保资助申请涵盖所有要求的要素对于获得较低的评审分数很重要。我们的研究表明，执行计划和资助技巧对评审人员评分的影响比其他因素更大。研究人员必须明确阐述与进行实验和分析相关的项目。研究人员还必须同等关注整体质量和完整性要素，以优化获得资助的机会。
