title: Factors impacting successfully competing for research funding: an analysis of applications submitted to the Plastic Surgery Foundation.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Federal research funding is decreasing, forcing specialty organizations to have an increasingly important position in developing and fostering research. As the research and innovation arm of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, The Plastic Surgery Foundation has a key role in supporting promising plastic surgery research. Understanding the grant review process and factors that contribute to funding well-written grant funding applications is essential for aspiring academic surgeons.
  
  
  METHODS
  All research grant applications submitted to The Plastic Surgery Foundation in 2012 and 2013 were evaluated. Each reviewer comment was assessed independently by two study team members and classified into key weakness categories. The chi-square test was used to compare results between funded and unfunded grants. Linear regression identified which critique elements corresponded to changes in scores, and logistic regression identified elements that predicted funding.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The authors analyzed 1764 comments from 240 applications. Of these, 55 received funding. Funded grants had significantly fewer reviewer comments in four of five weakness categories. As expected, funded grants received better (lower) scores. Concerns in the categories of plan for execution and other elements/grantsmanship significantly affected score and odds of funding.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Ensuring that a grant addresses all required elements is important for receiving a low reviewer score. Our study demonstrates that plan for execution and grantsmanship influence reviewer scoring more than others. Investigators must clearly address items associated with conducting their experiments and performing the analysis. Investigators must also give equal attention to elements of overall quality and completeness to optimize chances of funding.
authors: Arlington Heights, Ill.; and Ann Arbor, Mich. From the American Society of Plastic Surgeons; and the Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System.
authors: Keith M
authors: KM
authors: Hume
authors: Aviram M
authors: AM
authors: Giladi
authors: Kevin C
authors: KC
authors: Chung
mesh_terms: D004465:Economic Competition; D005381:Financing, Organized / Q000191:economics / Q000458:organization & administration / Q000639:trends; D005582:Foundations / Q000191:economics*; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006801:Humans; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000592:standards; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000191:economics; D012107:Research Design; D012109:Research Support as Topic; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D012955:Societies, Medical / Q000458:organization & administration; D013518:Surgery, Plastic / Q000191:economics* / Q000458:organization & administration; D014481:United States; D014956:Writing / Q000592:standards
references: N Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 2;370(1):3-6
references: 24382062
references: Nature. 2012 Feb 16;482(7385):429-31
references: 22338701
references: J Hand Surg Am. 2008 Apr;33(4):566-72
references: 18406962
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Nov;126(5):1763-1771
references: 21042135
references: Gastroenterology. 2012 Jan;142(1):4-7
references: 22100818
references: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 May;133(5):1289-1294
references: 24445872
references: Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2013 Dec;26(4):228-31
references: 24436682
references: JAMA. 2010 Jan 13;303(2):137-43
references: 20068207
references: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006 Mar;1(2):340-3
references: 17699226