Abstract
As competition intensifies and research funding contracts, the opportunity cost of grant application has become a central concern for the research community. Despite widespread acknowledgement of this burden, the return on investment (ROI) of grant applications has rarely been quantified using real world data. To address this, we carried out a quantitative return on investment analysis of competitive research funding using Australia as a model system, leveraging its transparent and international comparable funding structures. We analysed the two major government funding schemes-the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Idea Grants and the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project (DP) Grants and quantified their return on investment rates by comparing the applicants' salary costs associated with grant applications versus the expected awarded fundings. Based on the past seven years of data, we found that even under conservative assumptions, the cumulative salary costs incurred during grant preparation typically exceeded the expected funding returns, resulting in low ROIs. While based on Australian data, these finding are likely to extend to other competitive research systems. Our results quantitatively reveal the high-risk, low return nature of contemporary grant application processes and suggest the need for more strategic funding approaches and structural optimizations of the funding ecosystem.
Full text
6,779 characters
· extracted from
preprint-html
· click to expand
When grant writing costs more than it pays: A return-on-investment analysis | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 23 January 2026 V1 Latest version Share on When grant writing costs more than it pays: A return-on-investment analysis Authors : Duan Ni 0000-0002-3902-2843 [email protected] and Ralph Nanan Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176918698.87912423/v1 908 views 138 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract As competition intensifies and research funding contracts, the opportunity cost of grant application has become a central concern for the research community. Despite widespread acknowledgement of this burden, the return on investment (ROI) of grant applications has rarely been quantified using real world data. To address this, we carried out a quantitative return on investment analysis of competitive research funding using Australia as a model system, leveraging its transparent and international comparable funding structures. We analysed the two major government funding schemes-the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Idea Grants and the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project (DP) Grants and quantified their return on investment rates by comparing the applicants' salary costs associated with grant applications versus the expected awarded fundings. Based on the past seven years of data, we found that even under conservative assumptions, the cumulative salary costs incurred during grant preparation typically exceeded the expected funding returns, resulting in low ROIs. While based on Australian data, these finding are likely to extend to other competitive research systems. Our results quantitatively reveal the high-risk, low return nature of contemporary grant application processes and suggest the need for more strategic funding approaches and structural optimizations of the funding ecosystem. Supplementary Material File (manuscript-authorea.pdf) Download 634.76 KB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 23 January 2026 Copyright This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Keywords funding funding application grant grant application return on investment return on investment (roi) szilard point Authors Affiliations Duan Ni 0000-0002-3902-2843 [email protected] Sydney Medical School Nepean, The University of Sydney Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney Nepean Hospital, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District View all articles by this author Ralph Nanan Sydney Medical School Nepean, The University of Sydney Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney Nepean Hospital, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 908 views 138 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Duan Ni, Ralph Nanan. When grant writing costs more than it pays: A return-on-investment analysis. Authorea . 23 January 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176918698.87912423/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.176918698.87912423/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe15a3abd294807',t:'MTc3OTE3NTM2Ng=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.