Peer review, program officers and science funding

Area of Science:

• Scientific funding cycles
• Research grant applications
• Agent-based modeling

Background:

• Increased competition for research funding has led to more proposal submissions and lower success rates.
• Understanding the dynamics of the funding cycle is crucial for optimizing grant application strategies.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the efficiency of different proposal-submission strategies.
• To evaluate the impact of program officer and reviewer behaviors on funding outcomes.
• To analyze the effects of varying funding rates on strategy effectiveness.

Main Methods:

• Development of an agent-based model simulating the research funding cycle.
• Incorporation of variations in program officer and reviewer behaviors.
• Analysis across a range of funding rates.

Main Results:

• Program officers using more reviewers and requiring consensus can encourage fewer proposal submissions.
• Selfish or negligent reviewers decrease the effectiveness of submitting more proposals, especially when funding is abundant.
• When funding falls below 10-15%, submitting numerous proposals becomes the most effective strategy for scientists.

Conclusions:

• Optimizing reviewer selection and consensus mechanisms can improve funding efficiency.
• Reviewer conduct significantly impacts proposal success, with reduced influence at lower funding levels.
• In highly competitive funding environments, a high-volume submission strategy is essential for scientists to maintain funding.