home-icon
  • checkmark Responsible conduct of research
    • checkmark Design and conduct
    • checkmark Design and methodology
    • checkmark Possible flaws in a study design
    • checkmark Preregistration and registered reports
    • checkmark Reproducibility and replicability of research
    • checkmark Statistics in research
    • checkmark Research funding
    • checkmark Research Data Management (RDM)
    • checkmark FAIR data principles for research data
    • checkmark Data Management Plan
    • checkmark Reporting results
    • checkmark Presenting your data
    • checkmark Image processing
    • checkmark Authorship
    • checkmark Author affiliation
    • checkmark Citation and referencing
    • checkmark Open access to publications
    • checkmark The quality of a journal
    • checkmark Peer review
    • checkmark Preprints
    • checkmark Novelty of your work
    • checkmark The value of negative results
  • checkmark Declaration of conflict of interest
  • checkmark Science communication
  • checkmark Research(er) evaluation and assessment
  • checkmark References for module 3 - Good Academic Practices

Research funding

jumping-icon base

Research funding

Due to competition and low chances of obtaining funding (Garner et al 2013), researchers are now more than ever struggling to obtain the resources to fund their research project. As applying for funding can be time-intensive, researchers might feel like spending more time on writing applications than on research. So, when having a great idea, why not try and sell it to multiple funders and see which one ‘bites’?

With grant success at all-time low, scientists are working harder than ever to fund their research. They respond to the competitive economic times by submitting more applications. They may also simultaneously or serially submit applications to multiple funding agencies to increase their odds of getting funding. Some grant agencies allow the submission of applications with identical or highly similar specific aims, goals, objectives and hypotheses. But we believe that researchers should not accept duplicate funding for the same work – either the whole study or any part of it.

Quote from: Same work, twice the money? – Harold R. Garner, Lauren J. McIver & Michael B. Waitzkin – Nature 493 (2013).

It is therefore not unsurprising for a research proposal to be submitted to multiple funding bodies, either in identical or slightly modified form. This system of parallel applications increases the chance of obtaining funding. In addition, when funding is only partially granted, additional funding obtained from (an)other source(s) can help to acquire the budget needed for the complete project.

mindthegap

The Flemish Commission for Scientific Integrity (Vlaamse Commissie voor Wetenschappelijke Integriteit – VCWI) has formulated a general advice on Plagiarism in funding applications (2017).

mindthegap

Double dipping

Although there might be acceptable reasons to motivate the need for complementary funding by different funders, for example personnel costs under one and consumables at different funders, researchers should make sure not to accept funding for the same aspect of the research project.

While parallel applications aren’t necessarily problematic, some good practices should be kept in mind. First of all, researchers should be transparent towards the funding body and acknowledge if a (partially overlapping) proposal is under evaluation elsewhere. The same principle should be followed in case of overlap with an already granted project. Although there might be good reasons for the overlap, this should be communicated in a clear way. Finally, if during the application phase, the proposal is granted elsewhere, proper action should be taken in order not to obtain double funding. Researchers should not accept funding twice.

mindthegap

Note that more and more funders, as part of the application phase, are asking to declare whether a related proposal has been submitted/approved elsewhere. Do not assume related proposal(s) will go unnoticed if you don’t mention them, as this might have severe consequences on the further processing of your current and future application(s) and can be reported to the host institution.

mindthegap

ALLEA Code:

  • Researchers make proper and conscientious use of research funds.