↓ Skip to main content

To Apply or Not to Apply: A Survey Analysis of Grant Writing Costs and Benefits

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
To Apply or Not to Apply: A Survey Analysis of Grant Writing Costs and Benefits
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0118494
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ted von Hippel, Courtney von Hippel

Abstract

We surveyed 113 astronomers and 82 psychologists active in applying for federally funded research on their grant-writing history between January, 2009 and November, 2012. We collected demographic data, effort levels, success rates, and perceived non-financial benefits from writing grant proposals. We find that the average proposal takes 116 PI hours and 55 CI hours to write; although time spent writing was not related to whether the grant was funded. Effort did translate into success, however, as academics who wrote more grants received more funding. Participants indicated modest non-monetary benefits from grant writing, with psychologists reporting a somewhat greater benefit overall than astronomers. These perceptions of non-financial benefits were unrelated to how many grants investigators applied for, the number of grants they received, or the amount of time they devoted to writing their proposals. We also explored the number of years an investigator can afford to apply unsuccessfully for research grants and our analyses suggest that funding rates below approximately 20%, commensurate with current NIH and NSF funding, are likely to drive at least half of the active researchers away from federally funded research. We conclude with recommendations and suggestions for individual investigators and for department heads.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,023 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 5%
Germany 2 1%
Netherlands 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 159 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Other 19 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 18 10%
Professor 15 8%
Other 40 22%
Unknown 18 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 16%
Psychology 19 11%
Physics and Astronomy 15 8%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 7%
Other 60 33%
Unknown 32 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 757. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2023.
All research outputs
#26,469
of 25,770,491 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#430
of 224,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216
of 273,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#8
of 5,367 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,770,491 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,367 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.