Hammond Gregory W, Lê Mê-Linh, Novotny Tannis, Caligiuri Stephanie P B, Pierce Grant N, Wade John
Department of Medical Microbiology and Medicine, University of Manitoba, 510 Basic Medical Sciences Building, 745 Bannatyne Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0J9, Canada.
Manitoba Medical Service Foundation, 599 Empress Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3G 3P3, Canada.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Jun 19;15(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0220-x.
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).
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.
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.
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.
我们评估了曼尼托巴省医疗服务基金会（MMSF，一个与曼尼托巴蓝十字会相关联的小型非营利基金会）在申请研究运营资助计划（ROGP）的新研究人员中确定最佳资助候选人的能力。
我们通过文献计量学和资助分析，回顾性比较了2008年至2012年期间五组获得MMSF资助和未获得MMSF资助的申请人在接受MMSF强化资助评审程序的评估决定后1至5年的学术产出指标。
与未获得资助的研究人员（未获得MMSF资助）相比，那些在MMSF竞赛中获得资助的研究人员（获得MMSF资助）在统计学上有显著更多的出版物、更高的h指数和更多的国家三理事会（TC）资助。获得MMSF资助的申请人与曼尼托巴省的研究团体为支持新研究人员的MMSF ROGP创造了强大且快速的（在获得MMSF资助的1至5年内）本地经济投资回报，对于主要研究者的TC资助约为9倍，对于合作（总计）TC资助的主要研究者为34倍。
在MMSF资助的申请人职业生涯早期使用少量种子资金用于竞争性研究资助与该申请人未来的短期成功相关。正确选择有前途的候选人，这些候选人在获得MMSF资助后随后表现出更出色的学术成绩，这表明选拔过程和ROGP是有价值的。多个因素可能促成了这一结果，包括候选人与五人选拔小组委员会的直接展示和面试过程，以及外部评审员的评估（强化资助评审程序）。这里使用的选拔方法可能会为新研究人员的研究资助选拔过程增添价值。
