A UK research council has defended its decision to stop reviewing previously unsuccessful submissions for grant funding, unless researchers are asked to resubmit.
The statement by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) that it would??that have been rejected in previous rounds – barring applications invited to resubmit by reviewers – faced criticism when it was announced earlier this month, with the policy described as “brutal”, “very harsh” and “neither fair nor productive” on social media.
“Many of us, including me, have won grants on resubmission using the reviews to improve the application,” commented James Bullock, an ecologist at the NERC-funded UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, who called the policy “really disappointing” on?
“Same as you, I won my current NERC one that way,” noted another ecologist.
网曝门
Others agreed, with one stating the rules “seem very harsh and likely will be applied inconsistently (indeed, impossible to be applied consistently)”, questioning how applications that had previously been unsuccessful at other UK research councils outside NERC would be treated.
The policy has been introduced to ensure a “consistent, harmonised approach across UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) that reduces bureaucracy”, a spokesperson said, bringing NERC into line with most other research councils.
网曝门
However, the Medical Research Council gives??after a year, with its policy stating a “declined application is typically not eligible for resubmission within 12 months of the date of full submission” unless a panel waives this and suggests further modifications to make a proposal competitive.
That MRC policy may align more closely with recent recommendations from the Research on Research Institute (RoRI), whose recent?study?urged funders to do more to help those behind high-ranking “near-misses” to strengthen their proposals and apply again. In many cases, research linked to “near-misses” was often more successful if it was eventually funded than “near-hits” that were approved first time.
James Wilsdon, director of RoRI, said the dangers of barring resubmissions could be significant.
“Adopting a ‘one strike and you’re out’ approach may end up costing us far more than any modest bureaucratic savings it yields, in terms of squandered ideas and innovations, or precarious and prematurely-shortened research careers,” said Wilsdon, professor of research policy at UCL.
网曝门
“We can all understand the pressures – limited availability of funding, an overloaded and often dysfunctional peer review system, and a desire to reduce bureaucratic burden. But we should also be mindful of the significant damage and opportunity costs – to research careers and to the wider agility and effectiveness of the funding system – if we artificially constrain the often random and serendipitous pathways to research funding and create single points of failure,” he added.
The demand management policy comes amid concerns over declining success rates for response-mode funding at the UK’s research councils. For the Economic and Social Research Council’s standard research grant applications closing 2023, only 9 per cent of?overall bids were funded.
Explaining the new NERC policy, a UKRI spokesperson explained how “using assessment processes to improve applications through multiple resubmissions puts extra pressure on our assessors with limited chances of success”.
“Declining to accept resubmissions reduces this pressure and improves the quality of the applications our councils receive,” they added.
网曝门
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to 罢贬贰’蝉 university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?
