IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0199648.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outcomes of early NIH-funded investigators: Experience of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia A Haggerty
  • Matthew J Fenton

Abstract

Survival of junior scientists in academic biomedical research is difficult in today’s highly competitive funding climate. National Institute of Health (NIH) data on first-time R01 grantees indicate the rate at which early investigators drop out from a NIH-supported research career is most rapid 4 to 5 years from the first R01 award. The factors associated with a high risk of dropping out, and whether these factors impact all junior investigators equally, are unclear. We identified a cohort of 1,496 investigators who received their first R01-equivalent (R01-e) awards from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases between 2003 and 2010, and studied all their subsequent NIH grant applications through 2016. Ultimately, 57% of the cohort were successful in obtaining new R01-e funding, despite highly competitive conditions. Among those investigators who failed to compete successfully for new funding (43%), the average time to dropping out was 5 years. Investigators who successfully obtained new grants showed remarkable within-person consistency across multiple grant submission behaviors, including submitting more applications per year, more renewal applications, and more applications to multiple NIH Institutes. Funded investigators appeared to have two advantages over their unfunded peers at the outset: they had better scores on their first R01-e grants and they demonstrated an early ability to write applications that would be scored, not triaged. The cohort rapidly segregated into two very different groups on the basis of PI consistency in the quality and frequency of applications submitted after their first R01-e award. Lastly, we identified a number of specific demographic factors, intitutional characteristics, and grant submission behaviors that were associated with successful outcomes, and assessed their predictive value and relative importance for the likelihood of obtaining additional NIH funding.

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia A Haggerty & Matthew J Fenton, 2018. "Outcomes of early NIH-funded investigators: Experience of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-28, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0199648
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199648
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199648
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199648&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0199648?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kendall Powell, 2016. "Young, talented and fed-up: scientists tell their stories," Nature, Nature, vol. 538(7626), pages 446-449, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zane, Ariel C. & Onken, James & Parker, Marie B. & Ghosh, Dolan, 2023. "An evaluation of programs to support new investigators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Striking a balance with funding for established investigators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Imran Akram, 2018. "Role of Vaccines in Preventing Cancer," Cancer Therapy & Oncology International Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 12(2), pages 27-30, October.
    2. Alejandro Agafonow & Marybel Perez, 2024. "When an A Is NOT an A in Academic Research, or How A-Journal List Metrics Inhibit Exploratory Behaviour in Academia," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 36(1), pages 105-121, January.
    3. Colin Gallagher & Dean Lusher & Johan Koskinen & Bopha Roden & Peng Wang & Aaron Gosling & Anastasios Polyzos & Martina Stenzel & Sarah Hegarty & Thomas Spurling & Gregory Simpson, 2023. "Network patterns of university-industry collaboration: A case study of the chemical sciences in Australia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4559-4588, August.
    4. Fernando T Maestre, 2019. "Ten simple rules towards healthier research labs," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-8, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0199648. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.