The success rate of the US fund application is increased because the deadline is canceled?

Author:Scientific network Time:2022.06.13

Compilation ｜ Meng Lingxiao

Researchers who have experienced fund application experience must be no stranger to the following scenes:

There are still a few days before the fund application deadline, and the materials are not supplemented. There are still a few hours before the deadline, but the last file has always failed upload. After the application for the clock, many scientific researchers issued a soul asks: Is DDL (Deadline) the highest productive forces?

Perhaps the pressure of DDL can make scientific researchers more freely prepare for the application fund, but will greatly liberate productivity. However, some scientific researchers have proposed: There is no clear DDL? It is equivalent to giving you 365 DDL.

Recently, the relevant reports of the National Science Foundation (NSF) performance evaluation system showed that in the past ten years, the number of applications received by the foundation has dropped by 17%, and the fund application success rate has increased from 22%to 28%. In this most significant discipline field, it seems that the deadline for fund applications has been canceled.

Application is less and the success rate is high

The projects funded by NSF account for about 25%of all basic academic research in the United States, so it is important in the American scientific research community. The official website of the Foundation shows that its annual budget of the 2022 fiscal year is US $ 8.8 billion, involving a variety of disciplines such as mathematics, computer science and social sciences.

Earlier, when the deadline for the application of the fund, the number of applications submitted by scientific researchers surged, which brought difficulties to the fund evaluation team. In order to ease the system pressure, NSF canceled the deadline for some funding projects and changed to submission at any time. As early as 2011, a small funding project of the Ministry of Sciences began to pilot "no deadline". The results showed that the number of applications for the project fell by more than 50%and has been declining since then.

In the test of some conventional scientific funding projects, there are also obvious changes in the decline in the number of applications. Beginning in April 2015, four funding projects including hydrology science have canceled the deadline. Since then, it has been found that the number of applications has declined sharply: there are 804 in 2014, and only 327 from April 2015 to March of the following year.

In the past ten years, the application received by NSF has dropped from 51562 in 2011 to 42,723 in 2020, a 17%decrease. At the same time, the fund application success rate increased from 22%to 28%. In terms of standard research funding, the success rate of application has risen faster, from 19%to 28%.

These changes are most significant in the Bioscience Council of NSF. According to the report, the application demand received by the agency has decreased by 50%in ten years, and the success rate of application has risen from 18%in 2011 to 36%in 2020. During the same period, the application demand received by the Geology Council fell by 28%, and the success rate of application increased from 31%to 42%.

The number of submitted applications is small, but the success rate has become higher. Some staff believe that this transformation is due to the deadline for canceling the application for submission and adjustment of the funding procedure.

However, there are exceptions to this trend. The current proposal received by the Computer Council is 20%more than ten years ago, and its budget increased by 40%, and the application success rate remained at 24%. The needs of physics and mathematics are flat, while the success rate of application has increased from 27%to 30%. During the statistical period, these two institutions still use a fixed deadline to receive applications.

Restriction of innovation or liberating productivity?

Scientific researchers can benefit from a higher funding for fund application, but some scientific researchers have proposed hidden concerns.

Sarah Nusser, a statistician and former vice president of the Aowl University University, said that she had not paid more attention to the number of faculty and employees who applied for, and took the ability to obtain funds as a key measurement indicator. She also proposed the concerns of many policy makers: the proposal of cutting -edge research applications has decreased, will the country's innovation ability decrease?

NSF's supervisor Stephen Willard said, "We are not satisfied with the decline in the number of applications. At present, we are trying to find out the reason to reverse the situation."

James Olds, a neuroscience at George Mason University, had led the work of the Biology Council from 2014 to 2018. It was that at that time, the agency amended the relevant rules of the deadline. He believes that these changes can help improve the quality of the application. "Life scientists are always collecting more data to verify the assumptions, so I prefer to see that scientific researchers submit applications when preparing to be ready, rather than because of the deadline of 5 pm."

Behind the change, not only DDL

NSF analyst Erika Rissi believes that changes in the application procedure may not explain the reduction in the number of applications. "The performance evaluation report helps to discover the trend of change, but it cannot determine the deep cause behind the change."

Higher education related persons believe that whether scientific researchers submit a fund application are affected by various factors, such as whether to prepare for new applications, estimates to obtain funding, and so on. Although the report is only statistics from the data of September 2020, the new crown epidemic during this period will also affect the application of funds from scientific researchers.

In addition, the report also shows that the gender and race of the applicant also shows a certain change trend. In the past ten years, the number of women's applications has fallen by 12%, while men have fallen by 21%. The number of applications for black and Asian researchers decreased by 27%and 28%, respectively, much higher than the overall decline. The report also recommends to improve a critical time indicator, that is, from receiving the proposal to the "intermediate period" that the applicant's funding is determined. The goal of the agency is to take the application of 75%within 6 months, but this goal has not been achieved in the past 4 years.

Many scientific researchers have affirmed the flexibility of independent arrangements for the deadline for cancellation of fund applications. However, some scientific researchers believe that there is no deadline for the deadline, and they are almost impossible to work.

If you submit an application earlier or more polished items, how would you choose?

Reference materials:

https://www.science.org/Content/Orticle/odds- IMPROVE-winning-nsf-Grants-Drop- Applications-some- Observers

https://www.science.org/content/article/no-pressure-nsf-tests-eadlines-hlves-number-roposals

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01076-x

https://www.nsf.gov/about/

Edit | Fangyuan

Capture | Zhihai

/> />