Cited by 58

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers

Herbert, Danielle L, Coveney, John, Clarke, Philip, Graves, Nicholas, Barnett, Adrian G·2014·BMJ Open

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004462

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

  1. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.051 · DOI
  2. 10.1038/464474a · DOI
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800 · DOI
  6. Herbert, 2013, Funding: Australia's grant system wastes time, Nature, 495, 314, 10.1038/495314d · DOI
  7. 10.1126/science.1197077 · DOI
  8. Barnett, 2014, The research lottery: the pressures on the Australian grant system, Aust Q, 85, 4
  9. European Science Foundation. European peer review guide: integrating policies and practices into coherent procedures. 2011. http://www.esf.org
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. Shambrook, 2012, Comparison of stress-related factors in the 2007 and 2010 Research Administrator Stress Perception Surveys (RASPerS), J Res Adm, 43, 107
  13. Winefield, 2008, Update on National University Stress Study, Aust Univ Rev, 50, 20
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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

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
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