Skip to main content

Table 5 Frequency of specific factors cited by reviewers as barriers to undertaking grant review

From: Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives

 

Never, n (%)

Sometimes, n (%)

Often, n (%)

Always, n (%)

Not applicable, n (%)

Insufficient interest in the focus of the application

32 (12)

152 (59)

39 (15)

8 (3)

7 (3)

Insufficient knowledge on the focus of the application

14 (5)

136 (53)

50 (19)

30 (12)

9 (4)

Having to review too many grants for funding organisations

46 (18)

114 (44)

54 (21)

10 (4)

12 (5)

Having to review too many journal articles

38 (15)

99 (38)

74 (29)

19 (7)

8 (3)

Long grant applications

67 (26)

104 (40)

47 (18)

10 (4)

9 (4)

Poor quality of the grant applications

67 (26)

107 (42)

38 (15)

12 (5)

11 (4)

Reviewing taking too much time

35 (14)

111 (43)

68 (26)

17 (7)

5 (2)

Inadequate guidance on the requirements for review

116 (45)

98 (38)

15 (6)

2 (1)

7 (3)

Believing that there is a more appropriate reviewer for the application

32 (12)

162 (63)

33 (13)

6 (2)

5 (2)

Tight deadlines for completing the review

36 (14)

125 (48)

59 (23)

12 (5)

4 (2)

Conflicts with other workload

25 (10)

85 (33)

81 (31)

40 (16)

6 (2)

Lack of formal recognition of reviewer contributions

134 (52)

56 (22)

25 (10)

12 (5)

6 (2)

Not being paid for reviewing

141 (55)

52 (20)

19 (7)

13 (5)

9 (4)

Not being paid enough for reviewing

160 (62)

28 (11)

16 (6)

7 (3)

24 (9)

Having conflicting interests with the applicants

68 (26)

126 (49)

17 (7)

20 (8)

7 (3)

Your own success rate with the funder

163 (63)

50 (19)

7 (3)

1 (1)

14 (5)

Lack of fluency in the language in which the proposal is written

172 (67)

35 (14)

3 (1)

4 (2)

23 (9)

  1. Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding and/or missing data.