Surgery. 2023 Nov 17:S0039-6060(23)00745-6. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.09.057. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Grant writing takes significant time and effort and often may be elusive, especially on a first attempt. After the rejection of a grant, many investigators face a dilemma regarding the best next steps. In this article, we discuss the options of revision versus resubmission and how to navigate these decisions.
METHODS: The literature was surveyed, including review articles, personal perspectives, and editorial pieces regarding the grant writing and funding processes. The National Institute of Health database was reviewed, and data were extrapolated from the past 10 years of funding percentages and rates of both R01 initial applications and resubmissions. Recommendations were then generated based on pertinent literature and experience from the authors.
RESULTS: The grant writing process involves many checkpoints between conception and funding. Only approximately 15% of R01 and R01-equivalent grants are accepted for funding on the initial submission. However, this statistic increases to >30% if the appropriate steps are taken to revise and resubmit the grant. These steps include consulting co-investigators, modifying hypotheses, drafting a succinct “Introduction” document, and many more. Knowing the options after the rejection of an original submission plays a huge role in the ultimate success of the grant.
CONCLUSION: Although receiving funding for an original grant can be difficult, with appropriate guidance, it may seem more feasible than initially expected. Adequately responding to the critiques of the grant and revising the grant appropriately can make or break the outcome of the grant.
PMID:37981550 | DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2023.09.057
