The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers
Abstract
Objective: To examine the impact of applying for funding on personal workloads, stress and family relationships. Design: Qualitative study of researchers preparing grant proposals. Setting: Web-based survey on applying for the annual National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant scheme. Participants: Australian researchers (n=215). Results: Almost all agreed that preparing their proposals always took top priority over other work (97%) and personal (87%) commitments. Almost all researchers agreed that they became stressed by the workload (93%) and restricted their holidays during the grant writing season (88%). Most researchers agreed that they submitted proposals because chance is involved in being successful (75%), due to performance requirements at their institution (60%) and pressure from their colleagues to submit proposals (53%). Almost all researchers supported changes to the current processes to submit proposals (95%) and peer review (90%). Most researchers (59%) provided extensive comments on the impact of writing proposals on their work life and home life. Six major work life themes were: (1) top priority; (2) career development; (3) stress at work; (4) benefits at work; (5) time spent at work and (6) pressure from colleagues. Six major home life themes were: (1) restricting family holidays; (2) time spent on work at home; (3) impact on children; (4) stress at home; (5) impact on family and friends and (6) impact on partner. Additional impacts on the mental health and well-being of researchers were identified. Conclusions: The process of preparing grant proposals for a single annual deadline is stressful, time consuming and conflicts with family responsibilities. The timing of the funding cycle could be shifted to minimise applicant burden, give Australian researchers more time to work on actual research and to be with their families.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“At the same time, norms about research productivity have shifted towards metric-based performance indicators (for example, h-index, citation count, external funding and publication output), which increasingly shape hiring, tenure and funding decisions69.”
From Prevalence and severity of mental health problems in early-career researchers: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [69]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- 10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.051 · DOI
- 10.1038/464474a · DOI
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Designing for the future: the new open suite of programs and peer review process. Ontario: CIHR, 2013. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/or_des_for_future-en.pdf
- Australian Government. Strategic review of health and medical research in Australia: better health through research. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2013. http://www.mckeonreview.org.au
- 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800 · DOI
- Herbert, 2013, Funding: Australia's grant system wastes time, Nature, 495, 314, 10.1038/495314d · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1197077 · DOI
- Barnett, 2014, The research lottery: the pressures on the Australian grant system, Aust Q, 85, 4
- European Science Foundation. European peer review guide: integrating policies and practices into coherent procedures. 2011. http://www.esf.org
- Wood F Wessely S . Peer review of grant applications: a systematic review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences . 2nd edn. London: British Medical Association Publications, 2003:14–44.
- Jacobson K . Six steps to fairer funding for female scientists. Conversation 2013. http://theconversation.com/six-steps-to-fairer-funding-for-female-scientists-16895 · DOI
- Shambrook, 2012, Comparison of stress-related factors in the 2007 and 2010 Research Administrator Stress Perception Surveys (RASPerS), J Res Adm, 43, 107
- Winefield, 2008, Update on National University Stress Study, Aust Univ Rev, 50, 20
- Langford, 2010, Benchmarking work practices and outcomes in Australian universities using an employee survey, J Higher Educ Policy Manage, 32, 41, 10.1080/13600800903440543 · DOI
- Bentley PJ Coates H Dobson IR . Factors associated with job satisfaction amongst Australian university academics and future workforce implications. In: Job satisfaction around the academic world. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012:29–54. · DOI
- Demicheli V Di Pietrantonj C . Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2007;(2):MR000003. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dreisoerner, A., Goetz, V., Frohnmayer, D., Tran, U. S., Voracek, M., & Nater, U. M. (2026) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-026-02505-5 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Herbert, D. L., Coveney, J., Clarke, P., Graves, N., & Barnett, A. G.
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e004462
- ISSN
- 2044-6055
- PMC
- PMC3975760
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004462
- The paper
- Herbert, D. L., Coveney, J., Clarke, P., Graves, N., & Barnett, A. G. (2014). The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004462