The increasing importance of fellowships and career development awards in the careers of early-stage biomedical academic researchers

Christopher L Pickett

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0223876

. 2019 Oct 17;14(10):e0223876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223876

The increasing importance of fellowships and career development awards in the careers of early-stage biomedical academic researchers

Christopher L Pickett ^1,^*

Editor: Sakamuri V Reddy²

PMCID: PMC6797166 PMID: 31622388

Abstract

Excessive competition for biomedical faculty positions has ratcheted up the need to accumulate some mix of high-quality publications and prestigious grants to move from a training position to university faculty. How universities value each of these attributes when considering faculty candidates is critical for understanding what is needed to succeed as academic faculty. In this study, I analyzed publicly available NIH grant information to determine the grants first-time R01 (FTR01) awardees held during their training period. Increases in the percentage of the FTR01 population that held a training award demonstrate these awards are becoming a more common component of a faculty candidate’s resume. The increase was largely due to an expansion of NIH K-series career development awards between 2000 and 2017. FTR01 awardees with a K01, K08, K23, or K99 award were overrepresented in a subset of institutions, whereas FTR01 awardees with F32 fellowships and those with no training award were evenly distributed across institutions. Finally, training awardees from the largest institutions were overrepresented in the faculty of the majority of institutions, echoing data from other fields where a select few institutions supply an overwhelming majority of the faculty for the rest of the field. These data give important insight into how trainees compete for NIH funding and faculty positions and how institutions prefer those with or without training awards.

Introduction

Extreme competition for jobs, publications, and grant funding has been a defining feature of U.S. biomedical research for well over a decade, and this hypercompetition has outsized negative effects on early-career researchers [1–3]. The increased competition for jobs has put a spotlight on how graduate students and postdocs are trained for the wide variety of careers available to them [4]. Because of this focus on training, several structural changes in the graduate student and postdoc training regimen have been made, including the establishment of career development programs at a variety of institutions across the country [5]. More recently, new data collection initiatives have illuminated the variety of career paths trainees take once they move on from their graduate or postdoc programs [6–8].

The career path that we arguably have the most information about is the one that leads to an academic faculty career. Competition is fierce: nearly 80 percent of newly minted biomedical Ph.D.s enter a postdoctoral research position and more than half of these new postdocs intend to pursue a faculty position, despite this being far more postdocs than there are faculty slots [9–11]. Securing an F32 postdoctoral fellowship or a K-series mentored career development award from the National Institutes of Health can increase a candidate’s chances of securing a faculty position and future funding, while having high-profile publications can be a predictor of success on the faculty track [12–14]. Postdocs also face a series of non-research related obstacles while trying to satisfy research requirements, including relatively low pay, decreased time for families and dimmed earnings prospects [11, 15].

However, our understanding of what makes a successful faculty candidate is still incomplete. For example, the NIH has nearly 30 different awards that trainees can apply for, and while receiving specific training awards confers an advantage in advancing along the faculty track, it is not known if all training awards are equally beneficial in this regard [12, 14, 16]. Graduate students, medical students, residents, and postdocs are eligible for NIH fellowships, designated as F-series awards (Table 1) [17]. The K-series NIH career development awards are directed to medical residents, postdocs, and some faculty (Table 1) [18]. As not all F and K-series awards have the same mission in supporting trainees, it is important to know which mechanisms predominantly support those who go onto successful faculty careers.

Table 1. Information on select F and K-series awards.

Award	Name	Who can apply^a	First awarded	Percent of category^b
F awards				100
F31	Ruth L. Kirschstein Predoctoral Individual National Research Service Award	Graduate students	Late 1970s^c	15.8
F32	Ruth L. Kirschstein Postdoctoral Individual National Research Service Award	Postdocs/medical residents	Late 1970s^c	81.2
Remaining F^d	--	--	--	2.9
K awards				100
K01	Mentored Research Scientist Career Development Award	Postdocs/early-stage faculty	1968^e	18.9
K08	Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Award	Medical residents/early-stage faculty	1974^e	35.5
K23	Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award	Medical residents/early-stage faculty	1999^e	18.5
K99	Pathway to Independence Award	Postdocs/medical residents/early-stage faculty	2007	10.2
Remaining K^f	--	--	--	16.8

Open in a new tab

^aFunding Opportunity Announcements restrict who can apply by, among other things, degree type and career stage.

^bThe number of awards of the indicated type divided by the total number of awards in the category in the pool of FTR01 awardees.

^cSee [17]

^dRemaining F is made up of 7 F-series mechanisms. No remaining individual mechanism was over 1 percent of the category.

^eSee [18].

^fRemaining K is made up of 19 K-series mechanisms. No remaining individual mechanism was over 5 percent of the category.

In the present study, I used publicly accessible information from the NIH to understand how important F and K awards were for those who received their first NIH R01 grant between 2000 and 2017. Researchers with faculty-level appointments are eligible to receive NIH research project grants, the most common and ubiquitous of which is the R01. R01s are highly sought by early-career faculty and support more early-career faculty than any other NIH grant mechanism [19, 20]. The data presented here indicate that a majority of first-time R01 (FTR01) awardees did not have an F or K award prior to attaining a faculty position, although the percentage of the FTR01 awardee pool with an F or K award was increasing. I dissected these data further to examine the five most common F and K awards and how these awardees are distributed across the research enterprise. These data highlight differences in the distribution of FTR01 awardees with specific F and K awards, and I offer suggestions for further investigations to help shape policy.

Results

I downloaded publicly available grant data from NIH ExPORTER to better understand the relationship between F and K awards and subsequent R01s. Trainees are the principal investigators on F and K-series awards, and they can be followed from their training position to their faculty position with publicly available grant data. T-series training grants, on the other hand, have a faculty member as the principal investigator, and the trainees funded by the T32 are not in the public databases. For this study, “training awards” refers to F and K-series awards collectively and does not include T-series training grants.

Using these data, I identified first-time R01 (FTR01) awardees in each year from 2000 to 2017. I then determined the F and K-series grants these FTR01 awardees held prior to their R01 dating back to 1985 (See Data collection and limitations). In 2000, about 23 percent of the FTR01 awardee pool had previously held a training award, and this rose near 37 percent in 2017 (Fig 1A and S1 Table). The percentage increased linearly across this time (r² = 0.95; Fig 1A). These data indicate that a minority of faculty have held an NIH training award prior to becoming faculty, but that holding a training award is becoming an increasingly common attribute of FTR01 awardees.

Fig 1 — **(A)** The percentage of the FTR01 population without a prior F or K award (closed symbol) and with a prior F and/or K award (open symbol). **(B)** The percentage of the FTR01 population without a prior F or K award (black), those with an F-series award (blue), K-series award (orange), and an F and a K-series award (gray). Best fit linear trend lines are indicated as dashed lines.

I broke the population of those with a training award into those who held an F-series award, a K-series award, and one of each. In 2000, 77 percent of FTR01 awardees had never held an NIH grant, 9 percent had held a K award, 12.5 percent had held an F award, and 1.5 percent had held an F and K award prior to receiving their first R01 (Fig 1B and S1 Table). By 2017, 63.3 percent of FTR01 awardees had never held an NIH grant (1.2-fold decrease over 2000; linear trend line r² = 0.93), 24.5 percent had held a K award (2.7-fold increase; r² = 0.95), 7.4 percent had held an F award (1.7-fold decrease; r² = 0.82), and 4.8 percent had held an F and a K award prior to receiving their first R01 (3.3-fold increase; r² = 0.87; Fig 1B and S1 Table). These data indicate the decline in the proportion of the FTR01 awardee pool that never held a training award arose almost entirely from an increase in those who held K awards.

F and K-series awards are a collection of individual grant mechanisms. To determine if changes in the abundance of these grants can account for the change in prevalence of F and K-series awards in the FTR01 awardee pool, I determined the most common F and K-series mechanisms in the FTR01 awardee pool. There were nine F-series mechanisms in the FTR01 awardee pool between 2000 and 2017. Almost 16 percent were F31 predoctoral fellowships and over 80 percent were F32 postdoctoral fellowships (Tables 1 and S2). No other F-series mechanism, including the F30 MD/PhD predoctoral award, accounted for more than one percent of F awards in the FTR01 pool (S2 Table). There were 23 K-series mechanisms in the FTR01 awardee pool in the same time frame, and K01, K08 and K23 mentored career development awards and the K99 pathway to independence award combined to account for 83 percent of K-series awards (Tables 1 and S2). No other K-series mechanism accounted for more than 5 percent of K awards in the FTR01 awardee pool (S2 Table). As the F32, K01, K08, K23, and K99 mechanisms were likely to be the training awards most proximal to receipt of an R01, I focused my remaining analyses on these five mechanisms.

I next assessed whether changes in the percentages of F32, K01, K08, K23, and K99 awardees in the FTR01 awardee pool could account for the overall F and K-series changes between 2000 and 2017 (Fig 1B). The percentage of FTR01 awardees with a prior F32 award declined from 2000 to 2017 by about a third (Fig 2A and S3 Table). The percentage of FTR01 awardees with K01, K23, or K99 awards each increased across the time frame, while those with a K08 were relatively stable (Fig 2A and S3 Table). These data indicate that the broad changes in F and K-series awards in the FTR01 awardee pool are mirrored by changes in these five individual mechanisms. It is important to note that the K01 program was a very small program until it was expanded in the late 1990s, K23 grants were first awarded in 1999, and K99 grants were first awarded in 2007 (Table 1) [18]. Therefore, the increase in the percentage of the FTR01 pool with these awards is to be expected. Furthermore, it appears that it took about 10 years for K01 and K23 awardees to become a stable percentage of the FTR01 population (Fig 2A and S3 Table). K99 awards have now been awarded for ten years, but it will take a few more years to determine if the number of K99 awardees in the FTR01 awardee pool has similarly stabilized.

Fig 2 — **(A)** Percent of FTR01 awardees with the indicated training award. **(B)** Number of indicated training awards made annually. **(C)** Percent of training awardees from each year to go on to receive an R01.

The changes of these five training awards in the FTR01 awardee pool could be due to changing university preferences for hiring training awardees or simply by changes in the absolute number of training awards made over this period. The total number of F32 and K08 awards fell between 2000 and 2017, while K01 and K23 awards increased (Fig 2B and Table 2). K99 awards, first made in 2007, also increased between 2007 and 2017 (Fig 2B and Table 2). The trends for F32, K01, K23, and K99 awards match what might be expected from the percentage of FTR01 awardees with these awards (Fig 2B and Tables 2 and S3). The exception is the K08 awards, which was flat in the FTR01 awardee pool while falling in real numbers (Fig 2B and Tables 2 and S3).

Table 2. Percentage of training awardees who go on to receive an R01.

	F32		K01		K08		K23		K99
Year	Total awards^a	Receiving R01 (%)^b	Total awards^a	Receiving R01 (%)^b	Total awards^a	Receiving R01 (%)^b	Total awards^a	Receiving R01 (%)^b	Total awards^a	Receiving R01 (%)^b
2000	836	24.4	141	40.4	256	50.8	193	43.0	--	--
2001	759	20.2	160	48.1	241	44.8	182	43.4	--	--
2002	599	20.4	178	43.3	290	43.1	196	51.0	--	--
2003	718	18.2	215	43.7	280	43.2	212	44.8	--	--
2004	711	19.5	198	44.9	264	46.6	223	41.3	--	--
2005	699	18.2	195	46.2	268	45.5	229	39.7	--	--
2006	692	19.1	177	39.0	228	45.6	178	40.4	--	--
2007	616	17.5	203	45.3	191	42.4	215	41.4	182	66.5
2008	638	15.2	176	40.3	228	42.5	213	38.5	178	59.0
2009	630	11.4	151	34.4	239	37.2	225	29.8	203	48.3
2010	642	7.8	192	35.4	215	42.3	208	33.7	191	53.9
2011	599	3.5	155	29.7	175	33.7	202	25.7	180	39.4
2012	584	2.9	168	20.8	163	25.2	200	26.5	211	36.5
2013	551	0.9	161	14.3	128	14.8	177	15.3	211	10.9
2014	585	0.5	202	5.9	168	6.5	200	2.5	245	3.3
2015	518	0	207	4.3	182	1.6	205	1.5	209	1.4
2016	517	0	212	1.9	183	0.5	205	0.5	230	0
2017	570	0	203	0	199	0	216	0.5	234	0.4
% Change^c	-26.3	--	36.2	--	-16.0	--	7.8	--	4.9	--
Average^d	--	19.7	--	41.9	--	44.0	--	40.6	--	56.9
StDev^d	--	2.1	--	4.4	--	3.4	--	5.6	--	7.7

Open in a new tab

^aThe total awards of the indicated type granted by the NIH in the indicated year.

^bThe percentage of those receiving the indicated training award in the indicated year who eventually receive an R01.

^cThe percent change in the total number of awards between 2000 and 2007 (F32), 2000 and 2010 (K01, K08, K23), and 2007 and 2010 (K99).

^dThe average and standard deviation of the percent of the pool receiving an R01 between 2000 and 2007 (F32), 2000 and 2010 (K01, K08, K23), and 2007 and 2010 (K99).

Changes in the absolute numbers of awards could reduce the number of FTR01 awardees with a specific training award, but there could be an additional effect if a university’s hiring attitudes toward candidates with specific awards changed to over or undervalue them. Therefore, I next tested whether there was any change in the percentage of the training awardees from each year to eventually receive an R01. For those receiving an F32 between 2000 and 2007, roughly 20 percent each year went on to receive an R01 (Fig 2C and Table 2). For those receiving a K01, K08 or K23 between 2000 and 2010, around 40 percent each year eventually received an R01 (Fig 2C and Table 2). And for those receiving a K99 between 2007 and 2010, about 55 percent each year eventually received an R01 (Fig 2C and Table 2). The percentage of F32 awardees receiving an R01 declined after 2007 and the percentage of K01, K08, K23, and K99 awardees declined after 2010. This is likely because the awardees have not had sufficient time to complete their training, find faculty positions and successfully compete for an R01. These data indicate the changes in the composition of the FTR01 awardee pool are likely driven by training award abundance.

Distribution of training awards and FTR01s among institutions

Institutions evaluate faculty candidates on their funding track records, among other things. To gain a more granular understanding of the interplay between F32, K01, K08, K23, and K99 awards, subsequent R01 awards, and the roles of institutions, I divided institutions into quartiles based on the number of FTR01s they received from 2000 to 2017 (See Data collection and limitations). The FTR01s for institutions were summed across the years, and the institutions were arrayed from those that received the most FTR01s to the fewest. I then split the institutions evenly into quartiles based on the number of FTR01 awards received (S4 Table). The first quartile was comprised of 12 institutions, the second quartile of 23 institutions, the third quartile of 46 institutions, and the fourth quartile of the remaining 896 institutions (S4 Table).

I first determined whether FTR01 awardees differentially segregate into quartiles based on the type of training award received. Because the original list or universities was divided evenly into quartiles based on the number of FTR01s received, the prediction is that each quartile should have about 25 percent of FTR01 awardees with a specific training award if there was no quartile-specific preference for hiring candidates with that award. Quartile values for FTR01 awardees with no prior award and those with a prior F32 were between 21 and 28 percent, indicating faculty with no prior award or with an F32 were mostly evenly spread across the institutional quartiles (Fig 3A and S5 Table). Over 35 percent of FTR01 awardees with a prior K01 were in first quartile institutions and this came at the expense of those in fourth quartile institutions (Fig 3A and S5 Table). Over 75 percent of FTR01 awardees with a prior K08 and 70 percent of FTR01 awardees with a prior K23 were in first and second quartile institutions, and those in the third and fourth quartile were well below the 25 percent mark (Fig 3A and S5 Table). FTR01 awardees with a prior K99 award were above the 25 percent mark in the first, second, and third quartiles with a significant drop off for the fourth quartile (Fig 3A and S5 Table). These data indicate K01, K08, K23, and K99 awardees typically segregate into first and sometimes second quartile institutions.

Fig 3 — Institutions were divided by quartile based on the number of FTR01s they received between 2000 and 2017, and the percentages of FTR01 awardees with the indicated training award were plotted. Quartiles are arranged from left to right with the first quartile as diamonds, the second quartile as circles, the third quartile as triangles, and the fourth quartile as squares. The red line indicates 25 percent. The data were evaluated based on the institutional quartile the FTR01 was received in for **(A)** all new faculty and **(B)** only external faculty hires or the institutional quartile the training award was received in for **(C)** all new faculty and **(D)** only external faculty hires.

Some departments and institutions hire their trainees as faculty members [21, 22]. Therefore, there are two paths from a training award to a faculty position: First, institutions could choose to retain training awardees as faculty, and, second, institutions could hire a training awardee through an external candidate job search. To determine the degree of retention versus external hiring for each training award, I determined the percentage of training awardees that received their training award and their R01 at the same institution. Just over 20 percent of F32 and K99 awardees stayed at the same institution for their training award and their R01 (S1 Fig). Over 60 percent of K01 awardees, nearly 70 percent of K08 awardees and over 80 percent of K23 awardees received their first R01 at the same institution as their training award (S1 Fig). These data indicate institutions have a strong preference for retaining their K01, K08, and K23 awardees.

I then reevaluated how FTR01 awardees that were external hires segregated among quartiles. FTR01 awardees with F32 and K01 awards were underrepresented in the first quartile and overrepresented in the third and fourth quartiles (Fig 3B and S5 Table). The distribution of FTR01 awardees with a K23 was flatter but these awardees were still overrepresented in the first quartile (Fig 3B and S5 Table). And the percentile values for FTR01 awardees with a K08 or K99 changed, but not enough to affect the overall trend in the distribution of awardees (Fig 3B and S5 Table). These data indicate that, when examining only external hires, those with an F32 or K01 tend to segregate to the third and fourth quartile, those with a K08 or K23 segregate into the first quartile, and those with a K99 are the most evenly distributed with most likely to receive an R01 in the second or third quartile.

Keeping the quartiles as defined as above, I next examined whether training awardees from specific quartiles comprised a larger than expected share of the FTR01 awardee pool. Because it takes significant time for a training awardee to receive an R01, analyses of F32 awardees were restricted to 2000 to 2007, analyses of K01, K08, and K23 awardees were restricted to 2000 to 2010, and analyses of K99 awardees were restricted to 2007 to 2010 (Fig 2C and Table 2). For each training award, trainees from first and second quartile institutions made up 60 to 85 percent of those who progressed to an R01 (Fig 3C and S5 Table). These values were largely unaffected when analyzing only external faculty hires (Fig 3D and S5 Table). These data indicate that those receiving a training award at a first or second quartile institution comprise the clear majority of the FTR01 population who previously held a training award.

The overrepresentation of training award recipients from first and second quartile institutions in the FTR01 population could indicate these training awardees are better at securing faculty positions and R01s, or they could indicate that first and second quartile institutions simply receive more training awards. To differentiate between these possibilities, I determined the percentage of training awardees in each quartile to receive an R01. Nearly 20 percent of those receiving an F32 between 2000 and 2007, 41 percent of K23 awardees between 2000 and 2010, and 57 percent of K99 awardees between 2007 and 2010 eventually received an R01, and all quartiles were within one standard deviation of the mean (S2A Fig and Table 2). About 42 to 44 percent of K01 and K08 awardees between 2000 and 2010 received an R01, but those receiving a K01 or K08 at a first quartile institution were more than one standard deviation away from the mean, while those in the fourth quartile for K01 awardees and the third and fourth quartiles for K08 awardees were more than one standard deviation below the mean (S2A Fig and Table 2). When analyzing only external faculty hires, nearly all values fell within one standard deviation of the mean (S2B Fig). These data indicate that, for those PIs that changed institutions between their training award and their first R01, the quartile in which they received a training award conferred minor advantages in eventually receiving an R01. Rather, the overrepresentation of first and second quartile training awardees in the FTR01 pool is likely due to those institutions receiving a larger number of training awards.

The interaction of training award and R01 quartiles

To better understand the flow of researchers from training institutions to R01 institutions, I constructed 4X4 grids for each training award. The R01 quartile was arrayed along the horizontal axis and the training award quartile was arrayed along the vertical axis. The resulting grid indicates how training awardees from specific quartiles were distributed across quartiles for their R01.

For the entire population of FTR01 awardees, those that trained in a specific quartile were most likely to remain in that quartile (Fig 4A–4E). This effect was strongest for K01, K08, and K23 awardees (Fig 4B, 4C and 4D). Analyzing only external faculty hires revealed a different spread of FTR01 awardees across quartiles (Fig 4F–4J). Training awardees from first and second quartile institutions made up the majority of FTR01 awardees across all quartiles (Fig 4F–4J). In addition, a large proportion of third and fourth quartile F32 awardees received R01s at fourth quartile institutions (Fig 4F). These data indicate that those who received a training award at a first quartile institution made up the largest fraction of faculty in institutions of all quartiles. Furthermore, the bottom left quadrant of each grid almost always has the smallest percentage of the population (Fig 4). This indicates that receiving a training award in a third and fourth quartile institution followed by an R01 at a first or second quartile institution is the least likely outcome for new faculty.

These data present a picture of how the aggregate FTR01 awardee pool from 2000 to 2017 is distributed across research institutions. To visualize how this distribution has changed over time, I plotted the composition of training awards in the FTR01 awardee pool in each quartile in 2000 and 2017. Those with no prior award in the 2000 FTR01 awardee pool ranged between 70 and 80 percent, and by 2017, this value was between 50 and 70 percent depending on quartile (Fig 5). Between 15 and 30 percent of FTR01 awardees previously held an F32, K08, or Other F/K award in 2000, and this value was 15 to 25 percent in 2017 (Fig 5). FTR01 awardees with a K01, K23, or K99 award were one percent or less of the 2000 FTR01 awardee pool, and they were 15 to 20 percent in 2017 (Fig 5). These data indicate that most of the increase in the proportion of FTR01 awardees with a prior NIH training award was due to the proliferation of K01, K23, and K99 awards. Furthermore, while there are differences in magnitude of changes across the quartiles, each quartile changed similarly in their composition of FTR01 awardees with prior NIH training awards.

Data collection and limitations

Grant funding information from 1985 to 2017 was downloaded from NIH ExPORTER (https://exporter.nih.gov/). To begin my analyses, I isolated all R01 awardees from each fiscal year. Using the “Contact PI Person ID” unique identifier for each principal investigator, the list of R01 holders from each year was deduplicated. The deduplicated unique identifiers for each year were arrayed next to each other, and standard Excel (Microsoft Excel for Mac V15.33; Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) formulas were used to determine whether a PI in a given year had ever previously received an R01 in a previous year stretching back to 1985. This was completed iteratively for each fiscal year. Those in each year that had never received a prior R01 were termed first-time R01 (FTR01) awardees.

I analyzed FTR01 awardees as opposed to the NIH-derived New Investigator (NI) or Early-Stage Investigator (ESI) pools. NIs and ESIs are investigators that have not “previously competed successfully as a [Program Director/Primary Investigator] for a substantial independent research award” [23]. However, what qualifies as a “substantial independent research award” can change based on the introduction or elimination of specific grant mechanisms. Furthermore, it is not readily apparent who is an ESI or NI with publicly accessible data, whereas FTR01 awardees are readily identifiable. For these reasons, I chose to analyze FTR01 awardees.

The unique identifiers of FTR01 awardees were compared to the unique identifiers of all F and K-series awardees from 1985 to 2017 using standard Excel formulas. The F and K-awardee list was limited to type 1/new awards. This matching method allowed the assignment of data to specific PIs including, but not limited to, the year and location a training award was received and the year and location an R01 was received. For this study, “training awards” refers to F and K-series awards collectively and does not include T-series training grants.

Study time frame

Grant data through NIH ExPORTER is available from 1985 through the present. To analyze training awards received prior to the first R01, I started the analysis of FTR01 awardees in 2000 to give 15 years of prior award information.

Some training mechanisms are also available to faculty, and it is possible some of these training awards were received after the PI’s R01. To ensure the analyses here examined only those PIs who received a training award prior to their R01, the year a PI received a training award was subtracted from the year of their first R01. Negative values indicated the PI received the training award after their first R01, and zeroes indicated the PI received the training award the same year as their first R01. There were no instances of negative values or zeroes for F32 or K99 awards. There were 30 negative values and zeroes for K01 awardees (of 1227 awards, 2.4 percent), 12 negative values and zeroes for K08 awardees (of 2656 awards, 0.5 percent), and 19 negative values and zeroes for K23 awardees (of 1114 awards, 1.7 percent). Training awardees who received their R01 the same year or after their first R01 were excluded from the analysis.

Institutional analyses

Institutions are not always consistently named in NIH databases. For example, “University of California San Francisco” was used from 1985 through 2007 and “University of California, San Francisco” was used from 2008 through 2017. While these are clearly the same institution, the punctuation caused Excel to consider these as separate entities. Furthermore, some institutions changed names, merged, or were otherwise divided in the database. I cleaned the datasets based on my understanding of the relationships between institutions to remove as many of these false separate entries as possible (S6 Table) [9]. In addition, hospitals and medical schools are often associated with universities, and employees and researchers move freely among them; however, some hospitals and med schools are fragmented from the university in NIH databases. To get a more accurate picture of grants to institutions, I consolidated grants to hospitals and med schools under the name of the degree-granting university they were associated with, similar to the NSF’s Survey of Graduate Student and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvygradpostdoc/).

I tallied the FTR01 awards for each institution between 2000 and 2017. The list of institutions was then arrayed from top to bottom by how many FTR01s that institution received over the time frame. Institutions were divided into quartiles based on the number of FTR01 awards. The first quartile is the first 25 percent of all FTR01s, starting from the top of the list, and is comprised of 12 institutions. The second quartile continues from the 25 to the 50 percent mark (23 institutions), the third quartile from 50 to 75 percent (46 institutions) and the fourth quartile from 75 to 100 percent (897 institutions). See S4 Table for the full list of institutions and divisions into quartiles.

To generate the heat maps examining the interactions of training awardee and R01 quartiles, the training award quartile was aligned along the left and the R01 quartile along the top. Raw numbers of grantees were generated by standard Excel analyses of the dataset and percentages were determined. As each quartile was divided another four times to provide 16 possible bins, the percentile ranges for the 4X4 grid were derived from the ranges for the quartiles by dividing each endpoint by four. For example, the first bin for the quartiles is 0–15 percent. And 15 / 4 = 3.75. Therefore, the first bin for the grid is 0–3.75 percent, the second bin is 3.75 to 6.25 (25 / 4), and so on.

Discussion

Understanding the contours of hypercompetition and the realities of the environment in which today’s young scientists compete for funding, publications, and jobs is critical to develop policies that will improve the biomedical research enterprise [1]. The data presented here explore a persistent perception among young researchers that NIH funding is a prerequisite for attaining a faculty position. While not a prerequisite, a clear shift is underway that favors biomedical faculty candidates with at least one prior training award. Furthermore, examining the distribution of FTR01 awardees with training awards across institutions highlights unappreciated complexities with regard to success rates and physical transitions to faculty positions.

The percentage of the FTR01 population with a prior F or K award has steadily increased since 2000, and this tracks largely with an increase in the number of awards available to trainees. These awards also appear to confer a competitive advantage on R01 applicants—F32 awardees are nearly 6 percent more likely to receive an R01 than those who tried and failed to receive an F32, while K01, K08 and K23 awardees applying for an R01 had a nearly 25 percent greater chance of being awarded the R01 relative to those that applied for those K awards and failed [12, 14]. Together, these data indicate that training awards are increasing in importance for attaining an R01. However, the degree of importance is not knowable without investigating the number of training awardees who applied for an R01 and failed relative to those who didn’t have a training award and failed to secure an R01. These data are not available in the public databases used in the current study.

FTR01 awardees accounted for about 35 percent of the 2017 FTR01 awardee pool. However, this value may be misleading. Most F and K mechanisms are reserved for U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Immigrant scientists make up roughly two-thirds of the postdoc workforce and 15 to 25 percent of the FTR01 awardee pool is foreign born [12, 24]. If the number of FTR01 awardees in a given year is adjusted to omit those who were ineligible for a training award, roughly half of the remaining FTR01 awardees received a training award before their R01 in 2017. Furthermore, the percentage of training awards among the FTR01 awardee population is overrepresented relative to the percentage of training awards among the postdoc population, supporting previous results indicating training awards confer a competitive advantage in attempts to land a faculty position [12, 14].

The expansion of K01, K23, and K99 awards in the FTR01 awardee pool is approximately matched by the decline in those with no prior award. The use of these mechanisms is relatively new: the K01 program was expanded in the late 1990s, K23 awards were introduced in 1999, and K99 awards were introduced in 2007 (Table 1) [18]. It took roughly 10 years for K01 and K23 awards to become a relatively stable part of the FTR01 awardee population, and, if the same holds for K99 awards, then the mechanism has a couple of years before reaching steady state. Therefore, the increase in FTR01 awardees with a training award could be due to institutions preferring to hire faculty with prior training awards or due to the grant system still adjusting to the perturbation caused by introducing new training grant mechanisms.

Rather than being in opposition, these two models likely reinforce one another. Training awards are introduced into the research system in response to pressures on young scientists to distinguish themselves from their peers and to ensure healthy populations of specific classes of trainee. As more training awards are made, the number of faculty candidates with training awards increases. This changes a department’s perception of a faculty candidate’s possible accomplishments and feeds into the evaluation process. The pressure on candidates to attain a training award increases and feeds the demand for more training awards. This vicious circle is consistent with the data presented here and also manifests in anecdotal reports of departments supposedly only interviewing faculty candidates with a K99 award, for example.

This cycle extends beyond receiving an NIH training award as potential faculty candidates compete for high-quality publications and grant awards. Other NIH grants, like the R21, R03, and the now defunct R29 award, are small grants for discrete research projects that could serve a similar career-development purpose as the awards studied here. Grants from other federal sources, such as the National Science Foundation or Veterans Affairs, and nonprofit organizations, such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute or the American Heart Association, provide many of the same career benefits as NIH awards, and it is not clear how many of the FTR01 awardees without a prior NIH award had an award from a non-NIH organization. The highly selective and prestigious nature of these awards may portend even higher rates of conversion to faculty than observed for NIH training awards. However, these programs are small relative to the NIH system so the overall trends discussed here would likely be unaffected by including these awards. Understanding how FTR01 awardees with these non-NIH training awards are skewed across quartiles would be illuminating for understanding institutional preferences for funding track records.

Strategies for gaining grant funding

There are two basic profiles of training awards among FTR01 awardees: the F32/K99 profile and the K08 profile. For the F32/K99 profile, FTR01 awardees are roughly evenly distributed across quartiles, and about 20 percent of awardees receive a training award and R01 at the same institution. For the K08 profile, FTR01 awardees are most concentrated in first and second quartile institutions and 60 percent or more of awardees receive a training award and R01 at the same institution. The population of FTR01 awardees with a K01 or K23 award resembles the K08 profile when looking at all of the data, while the profile of external faculty hires more closely resembles the F32/K99 profile.

While the attributes of FTR01 awardees with an F32 or K99 are quite similar in this analysis, the biggest difference is in the percentage of awardees that eventually receive an R01. F32 awards are targeted to newer postdocs to launch their postdoc career with independent funding [16]. K99 awards were designed to support senior postdocs and could be converted to an R00 after transitioning to a faculty position [16]. While about 20 percent of F32 awardees eventually received an R01, roughly 90 percent of K99 awardees converted their K99 to an R00 and about 50 percent went on to receive an R01 [25, 26]. These data suggest these mechanisms are working as designed—F32 awards to support new postdocs with uncertain research futures and K99 awards to support those seeking independent research careers as faculty members.

The phenomenon that some faculty received a training award and R01 while at the same institution is consistent with previous findings that those who receive their first grants at elite institutions often persist at those institutions [22, 27]. That this effect is specific to K01, K08, and K23 awardees gives a glimpse into strategies for attaining faculty positions and launching labs. K01, K08, and K23 awards are the only awards in this analysis that are available to young faculty members (Table 1). Therefore, some fraction of K01, K08, and K23 awardees could potentially secure faculty positions without prior NIH funding and receive a K01, K08, or K23 award as faculty before receiving an R01. In this instance, the interpretation of Fig 3A would be that faculty at first and second quartile institutions were more successful at obtaining a K award followed by an R01 than their counterparts at third and fourth quartile institutions. In this instance, the percentage of FTR01 awardees with an NIH award prior to attaining a faculty position would be lower than is presented here.

The data presented here add to the discussion of the skewed distribution of funding in the research enterprise and the limited hierarchy of institutions providing new faculty members [21, 28, 29]. The first quartile in the present analysis, accounting for 25 percent of FTR01s between 2000 and 2017, was comprised of 12 institutions. These same institutions accounted or 35 percent of F32 awardees, 45 percent of K01 awardees, 58 percent of K08 awardees, 37 percent of K23 awardees and 41 percent of K99 awardees to eventually receive an R01 after changing institutions (S4 Table). However, the quartile in which a training award was received did not affect the likelihood of receiving an R01. This indicates a bias across the research enterprise toward renewing the faculty ranks from a select number of universities. The data here cannot determine whether this bias is due to decisions made by institutions during the hiring process, NIH study sections during grant application review, or a mix of the two. Regardless, this bias impedes the research enterprise from becoming more diverse and inclusive while artificially limiting the avenues of research being pursued.

The data here should be interpreted with some caution. First, the present analysis is affected by a selection bias as it examines only those who successfully received an R01. These data do not capture the entire universe of new faculty members or R01 applicants, with or without training awards. Understanding how many young faculty members submitted R01 applications yet never received an R01, along with their training award track record and institutional quartile, would give important context to this discussion. Second, the quartiles group institutions by average size of their FTR01 awardee classes, and they should not be confused with assumptions of institutional prestige. Some prestigious institutions were outside of the first quartile—Stanford University, for example, was in the second quartile and Princeton University was in the fourth quartile. Therefore, the quartile rankings here are not necessarily aligned with the perception of institutional prestige.

The data presented here demonstrate some of the power of public databases for understanding the dynamics of the biomedical research enterprise. NIH ExPORTER contains a wealth of information, and linking this database with other databases could increase the power of the general community’s ability to analyze the biomedical research enterprise. Furthermore, the NIH has a variety of datasets it is prohibited from making public but that are available to researchers on request (for example, see [12, 14]). Overlaying publicly available information, like that presented here, with non-public information, like the numbers and types of grant applications submitted by trainees and faculty, would be insightful. For example, do F32 awardees have to submit more or fewer applications before receiving an R01 than K awardees? And have the application and funding dynamics for those without training awards changed substantially over time? Beyond this, significant work is needed to better understand the multifactorial interactions among a faculty member’s training award track record, their publication history, and their training location and how they play into where they land a faculty position and how this affects R01 applications and awards. Furthermore, understanding how these forces shape hypercompetition is needed to craft policies that effectively relieve these pressures.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The percentage of training awardees who remained at their training institution for their R01.

(EPS)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.8MB, eps)}

S2 Fig. Likelihood of training awardees to eventually receive an R01 by institutional quartile.

(A) The percentage of all training awardees within each quartile that eventually received an R01 was plotted. Quartiles as in Fig 3. Solid lines indicate the average percentage of those with the indicated training award to receive an R01 between 2000 and 2007 (F32), 2000 and 2010 (K01, K08, and K23) and 2007 and 2010 (K99). Dashed lines indicate one standard deviation from the mean. (B) As in (A) but for only external faculty hires.

(EPS)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.9MB, eps)}

S1 Table. Percentage of first-time R01 awardees with prior training awards.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(10.6KB, xlsx)}

S2 Table. Award mechanisms in each category.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(10.5KB, xlsx)}

S3 Table. Percentage of FTR01 awardees with indicated training awards.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(10.7KB, xlsx)}

S4 Table. List of institutions arrayed from most to least FTR01s from 2000 to 2017.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(31.7KB, xlsx)}

S5 Table. Percent values for datapoints in indicated figures.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(10.4KB, xlsx)}

S6 Table. Institutional names found in NIH RePORTer that were aggregated in the current study.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(13.9KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

I thank Katherine Pickett, Melissa Vaught, George Santangelo, Gary McDowell, Judith Kimble, Needhi Bhalla, and Bruce Alberts for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Data Availability

All data used for these analyses were downloaded from the NIH ExPORTER public database (https://exporter.nih.gov/).

Funding Statement

CLP is supported by a grant from the Open Philanthropy Project, https://www.openphilanthropy.org/. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(16):5773–7. Epub 2014/04/16. 10.1073/pnas.1404402111 PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4000813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Daniels RJ. A generation at risk: young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(2):313–8. Epub 2015/01/07. 10.1073/pnas.1418761112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.McDowell GS, Gunsalus KT, MacKellar DC, Mazzilli SA, Pai VP, Goodwin PR, et al. Shaping the Future of Research: a perspective from junior scientists. F1000Res. 2014;3:291 Epub 2015/02/06. 10.12688/f1000research.5878.2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Pickett CL, Corb BW, Matthews CR, Sundquist WI, Berg JM. Toward a sustainable biomedical research enterprise: Finding consensus and implementing recommendations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(35):10832–6. Epub 2015/07/22. 10.1073/pnas.1509901112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.BEST. NIH Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training 2019. Available from: http://www.nihbest.org/.
6.Blank R, Daniels RJ, Gilliland G, Gutmann A, Hawgood S, Hrabowski FA, et al. A new data effort to inform career choices in biomedicine. Science. 2017;358(6369):1388–9. Epub 2017/12/16. 10.1126/science.aar4638 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Xu H, Gilliam RST, Peddada SD, Buchold GM, Collins TRL. Visualizing detailed postdoctoral employment trends using a new career outcome taxonomy. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36(2):197–202. Epub 2018/01/16. 10.1038/nbt.4059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Pickett CL, Tilghman S. Becoming more transparent: Collecting and presenting data on biomedical Ph.D. alumni. PeerJ Preprints. 2018. 10.7287/peerj.preprints.3370v2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Pickett CL, Bankston A, McDowell GS. The GSS is an unreliable indicator of biological sciences postdoc population trends. bioRxiv. 2017. Epub Dec. 1, 2017. 10.1101/171314 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Sauermann H, Roach M. SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE. Why pursue the postdoc path? Science. 2016;352(6286):663–4. Epub 2016/05/07. 10.1126/science.aaf2061 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Heggeness ML, Gunsalus KT, Pacas J, McDowell G. The new face of US science. Nature. 2017;541(7635):21–3. Epub 2017/01/06. 10.1038/541021a . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Heggeness ML, Ginther DK, Larenas MI, Carter-Johnson FD. The Impact of Postdoctoral Fellowships on a Future Independent Career in Federally Funded Biomedical Research. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series. 2018;No. 24508. 10.3386/w24508 [DOI]
13.van Dijk D, Manor O, Carey LB. Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Curr Biol. 2014;24(11):R516–7. Epub 2014/06/04. 10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.039 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Nikaj S, Lund PK. The Impact of Individual Mentored Career Development (K) Awards on the Research Trajectories of Early-Career Scientists. Acad Med. 2018. Epub 2018/12/07. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002543 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Kahn S, Ginther DK. The impact of postdoctoral training on early careers in biomedicine. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35(1):90–4. Epub 2017/01/11. 10.1038/nbt.3766 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.NIH. Types of Grant Programs 2019. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm.
17.Mantovani R, Look MV, Wuerker E. The Career Achievements of National Research Service Award Postdoctoral Trainees and Fellows: 1975–2004. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2006. [Google Scholar]
18.Michie J, Zhang X, Wells J, Ristow L, Pion G, Miyaoka A, et al. Feasibility, Design and Planning Study for Evaluating the NIH Career Development Awards. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2007. [Google Scholar]
19.Alberts B, Hyman T, Pickett CL, Tilghman S, Varmus H. Improving support for young biomedical scientists. Science. 2018;360(6390):716–8. Epub 2018/05/19. 10.1126/science.aar8405 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Lauer M, Tabak L, Collins F. Opinion: The Next Generation Researchers Initiative at NIH. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(45):11801–3. Epub 2017/11/09. 10.1073/pnas.1716941114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Pickett CL. "Bias in distribution of K99 awards and faculty hires" Rescuing Biomedical Research; 2017. Available from: http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/blog/bias-distribution-k99-awards-faculty-hires/. [Google Scholar]
22.Conte ML, Omary MB. NIH Career Development Awards: conversion to research grants and regional distribution. J Clin Invest. 2018;128(12):5187–90. Epub 2018/10/30. 10.1172/JCI123875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.NIH. Early Stage Investigator Policies 2019. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/index.htm.
24.Stephan P. How Economics Shapes Science: Harvard University Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
25.Berg JM. "My first pass evaluation of the K99-R00 program" Datahound. 2014. Available from: https://datahound.scientopia.org/2014/07/17/my-first-pass-evaluation-of-the-k99-r00-program/.
26.Pickett CL. "Examining the distribution of K99/R00 awards by race" Rescuing Biomedical Research; 2018. Available from: http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/blog/examining-distribution-k99r00-awards-race/. [Google Scholar]
27.Katz Y, Matter U. On the Biomedical Elite: Inequality and Stasis in Scientific Knowledge Production. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Publication; 2017. [Google Scholar]
28.Wahls WP. Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research. PeerJ. 2016;4:e1917 Epub 2016/04/15. 10.7717/peerj.1917 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Clauset A, Arbesman S, Larremore DB. Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Sci Adv. 2015;1(1):e1400005 Epub 2015/11/26. 10.1126/sciadv.1400005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223876.r001

Decision Letter 0

Sakamuri V Reddy

27 Aug 2019

[EXSCINDED]

PONE-D-19-22271

The Increasing Importance of Fellowships and Career Development Awards in the Careers of Early-Stage Biomedical Academic Researchers

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pickett,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Specifically: The authors should consider grant awards specific to early stages of biomedical academic investigators in data analysis and interpretations appropriately.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 11 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dr. Sakamuri V. Reddy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript Dr. Pickett used the National Institutes of Health (NIH) award database to investigate the role of F31 and F32 pre- and post-doctoral training awards and NIH career development awards (K awards) in the success of an investigator in securing an R01 award for the first time (FTR01). He found that the proportion of FTR01 awardees without a previous F or K award has been steadily declining since 2000, while the percentage of those with a previous K award has been steadily increasing in that time period. In particular, a high proportion of those receiving a K99 award seem to go on to obtain an R01 given sufficient time (i.e., about ten years so that those receiving their K99s between 2007 and 2012 have been quite successful to date at becoming FTR01 recipients). FTR01 awardees who had been able to obtain previous K awards in “first-tier” institutions, which were defined as having the greatest number of FTR01 awardees, were in general over-represented among new faculty hires in first-tier institutions. All institutions showed a decrease in the number of FTR01 recipients without a prior F or K award; the first- and second-tier institutions showed the lowest percentage of these FTR01 awardees without a previous award, mostly due to the fact that a larger proportion of their FTR01 recipients had received K awards. These data are interesting and needed for an informed discussion of NIH funding policies. There are a few relatively minor issues that require attention.

Major Points:

(1) F30 awards are also training grants. Were they such a small percentage that they were not considered?

(2) The NIH R29, although technically an R grant was geared to first-time NIH applicants and so for many played the role of a career development award. It is not clear whether or not the author included these R29 awards in his analysis but perhaps should.

Minor points:

(1) For Figure 3 (and supplemental Figure 2) it is suggested that the first-, second-, third- and fourth-tier institutions be represented by different symbols or colors.

(2) The author might wish to remind the reader to whom each K award is geared (MD versus PhD) and perhaps discuss whether there are differences related to degree.

(3) The Medical College of Georgia has undergone several name changes since 2000, first to Georgia Health Sciences University, then to Georgia Regents University and finally to Augusta University; the data from these “different” institutions should be combined.

(4) The author mentions the possibility of FTR01 awardees without prior F or K awards having received instead a career development award from an alternative agency on the third page of the Discussion. It is felt that this idea deserves a more extensive discussion, especially since certain organizations, such as the American Heart Association, have career development awards that jump-start a number of careers, particularly in cardiovascular research. Also, what role, if any, do career development awards from the Department of Veterans Affairs play in the ability of investigators to obtain R01 awards?

(5) On the first page of the results, it should be “principal investigator” rather than “principle investigator”.

Reviewer #2: This paper by Pickett describes an analysis of first-time NIH R01 grantees. He reports that an increasing percentage of new R01 winners has received a prior NIH F or K training grant. Furthermore, he follows the “flow” of researchers from training grants to independent appointments, and he finds that “top” institutions tend to produce the most new investigators. Overall, I think that most of the analysis is sound and informative. I have two major issues with the manuscript, and a few minor ones, described below:

1) Pickett divides institutions into quartiles based on the number of first-time R01s produced each year. I would anticipate that this would divide institutions based on size, rather than based on quality or prestige or research output or anything else. Indeed, looking at the makeup of each quartile, you can find MIT, Rockefeller, and the Salk in the bottom quartile, along with East Carolina University. The University of Pittsburgh is in the top quartile. (Pickett notes the same issue, when he mentions how Stanford is in the 2nd quartile and Princeton in the 4th). This reinforces my belief that he has divided institutions based on their total size (or, more accurately, the number of new faculty hired each year). Yet, in the abstract, he states that this data shows that “training awardees from top institutions were overrepresented in the faculty of the majority of institutions”. I do not think that that is an acceptable interpretation of the data.

I think that the question of researcher “flow” between institutions is important, but this needs to either be explained or analyzed differently. The approach requiring the least effort would probably be to simply change the wording in the paper: remove words like “top” when describing this division, and instead state clearly that this is likely a reflection of institutional size. That would also mean moderating the conclusions somewhat. Alternately, Pickett could choose to re-analyze the data (or add a supplemental analysis) that uses a more accurate division based on institutional prestige: US News Rankings? Nature’s research productivity index? Percent of faculty in the national academy? With a division based on one of those criteria, then I think that Pickett can reasonably refer to “top” institutions (with the caveat that of course no metric is perfect).

2) A somewhat similar issue (though the manuscript does a better job of directly addressing it): the title of the paper is “The Increasing Importance of Fellowships and Career Development Awards in the Careers of Early-Stage Biomedical Academic Researchers.” Yet, the data shows that the increasing percent of training awardees among new r01 recipients largely tracks with the increasing number of training awards, particularly the K99. If 20% of new faculty and 25% of new r01 recipients had training awards in 1999, while in 2017 it’s 30% and 35%, can you really say that fellowships are “increasingly important”? The lack of a “denominator” for these comparisons makes drawing such a conclusion difficult. I think that this can be dealt with by changing the title and the language in a few places – maybe something like “An increasing number of new NIH investigators have previously received an NIH training grant” – to more-accurately reflect your findings.

Minor points:

1) “R01s are of sufficient size and duration to sustain an independent research program” – not accurate.

2) “These data indicate institutions have a strong preference for retaining their K01, K08, and K23 awardees.” – These K grants can be awarded to early-career faculty, right? Is it possible that the apparent retention of K grantees can be explained because they were actually awarded at institutions where these individuals are currently assistant professors?

3) “These data suggest first and sometimes second quartile institutions prefer faculty candidates with K01, K08, K23, and K99 awards.” – can you draw this conclusion without knowing how many awardees applied to these institutions?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2019 Oct 17;14(10):e0223876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223876.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

13 Sep 2019

(Please note the page number references are to the revised version of the manuscript with the figures interwoven, not the tracked changes version requested by PLOS ONE.)

Reviewer 1

• F30 awards are also training grants. Were they such a small percentage that they were not considered?

I collected the FTR01 awardees and asked what F and K-series awards these awardees held. Nine F-series fellowships were represented in this cohort, including the F30 MD/PhD predoctoral fellowship. Of all of the F-series fellowships held by FTR01 awardees, 0.98% were F30 awards. For reference, 81.2% of F awards were F32 awards and 15.8% were F31 awards.

As the reviewer notes, F30 awards are important awards to trainees, even if they are not highly represented in the FTR01 awardee pool. I have included a new supplemental table, Table S2, that breaks down the percentage of all F and K-series awards in the FTR01 awardee pool

• The NIH R29, although technically an R grant was geared to first-time NIH applicants and so for many played the role of a career development award. It is not clear whether or not the author included these R29 awards in his analysis but perhaps should.

The question addressed in this manuscript is whether FTR01 awardees held prior F or K awards. The reviewer is asking a slightly different question—do FTR01 awardees receive any NIH award that would provide career development opportunities prior their first R01? This analysis would include those receiving R29 awards, which were designed to be a young faculty member’s first major research award. The R29 is no longer supported by the NIH, but R03 and R21 awards fill a similar niche in that they are small awards for a short amount of time that may be attained before an R01.

I focused on F and K awards because they can be secured by trainees, whereas R-series awards are almost always awarded to those with faculty, or similar level, appointments. Because I was interested in not just whether FTR01 awardees had prior training awards, but how those awards affected their movement to faculty positions, I only analyzed awards that could be won by trainees. Therefore, I believe an analysis of R29 awards to be beyond the scope of the current investigation.

I think the reviewer raises an important question, though, and I included text in the Discussion on p. 29 to indicate other awards could be used in similar ways to the F and K awards I analyze here.

• For Figure 3 (and supplemental Figure 2) it is suggested that the first-, second-, third- and fourth-tier institutions be represented by different symbols or colors.

I made the suggested changes so that all quartiles are different symbols.

• The author might wish to remind the reader to whom each K award is geared (MD versus PhD) and perhaps discuss whether there are differences related to degree.

I appreciate this comment. Table 1 explains the MD vs. PhD information, but I only make reference to this table at the beginning of the Results section. More references to the table throughout the document would address the reviewers concern, and I have included several more references to Table 1 in the Results and the Discussion.

• The Medical College of Georgia has undergone several name changes since 2000, first to Georgia Health Sciences University, then to Georgia Regents University and finally to Augusta University; the data from these “different” institutions should be combined.

I thank the reviewer for this information. I had combined Georgia Health Sciences University, Georgia Regents University and Augusta University, but I had not included the Medical College of Georgia. I have rectified this and updated Table S6 accordingly.

• The author mentions the possibility of FTR01 awardees without prior F or K awards having received instead a career development award from an alternative agency on the third page of the Discussion. It is felt that this idea deserves a more extensive discussion, especially since certain organizations, such as the American Heart Association, have career development awards that jump-start a number of careers, particularly in cardiovascular research. Also, what role, if any, do career development awards from the Department of Veterans Affairs play in the ability of investigators to obtain R01 awards?

I have expanded on a paragraph in the Discussion on p. 29 to address the role non-NIH awards may have in hiring and R01 funding decisions.

• On the first page of the results, it should be “principal investigator” rather than “principle investigator”.

These changes have been made.

Reviewer 2:

• Pickett … states that this data shows that “training awardees from top institutions were overrepresented in the faculty of the majority of institutions”. I do not think that that is an acceptable interpretation of the data.

This is an excellent point and I appreciate the reviewer bringing it up. I was trying to avoid discussions of prestige because it is highly subjective. Apparently, I was not entirely successful in editing out this language.

As the reviewer points out, the ranking of institutions into quartiles by average size of their annual FTR01 class likely reflects the size of institutions rather than the prestige of the institution. I have revised the manuscript to remove descriptors such as “top” to describe institutions, and, when appropriate, to discuss these institutions by quartile rather than other subjective qualifiers.

• A somewhat similar issue (though the manuscript does a better job of directly addressing it): the title of the paper is “The Increasing Importance of Fellowships and Career Development Awards in the Careers of Early-Stage Biomedical Academic Researchers.” Yet, the data shows that the increasing percent of training awardees among new R01 recipients largely tracks with the increasing number of training awards, particularly the K99. If 20% of new faculty and 25% of new R01 recipients had training awards in 1999, while in 2017 it’s 30% and 35%, can you really say that fellowships are “increasingly important”? The lack of a “denominator” for these comparisons makes drawing such a conclusion difficult. I think that this can be dealt with by changing the title and the language in a few places – maybe something like “An increasing number of new NIH investigators have previously received an NIH training grant” – to more-accurately reflect your findings.

The point I tried to make regarding “increasing importance” combines the data presented in the manuscript with previous work done by others. The reviewer is correct that the data presented here show that the number of FTR01 awardees with prior training awards tracks with an increase in the overall number of training awards. In addition, Heggeness et al (ref 12 in the manuscript) showed that people with an F32 applying for an R01 had a 6% greater chance of being awarded an R01 relative to those that applied for an F32 and did not receive it. Similarly, Nikaj and Lund (ref 14 in the manuscript) demonstrated that K01, K08 and K23 awardees applying for an R01 had a nearly 25% greater chance of being awarded the R01 relative to those that applied for those K awards and failed.

The increasing number of training awards across the timeframe analyzed combined with the competitive advantage they confer led me to conclude the awards were increasing in importance. However, the reviewer is correct that until we know how many people with training awards applied for an R01 and failed relative to those who didn’t have a training award and failed to secure an R01, I am not able quantify the degree of importance of training awards to success in the R01 competition.

Because the data are consistent with increasing importance, I have let this language stand. I have written a new paragraph in the Discussion on p. 27 to explicitly address how I arrived at this conclusion along with noting the caveat brought up by the reviewer.

• “R01s are of sufficient size and duration to sustain an independent research program” – not accurate.

I have removed the offending phrase. The sentence on p. 4 now reads, “R01s are highly sought by early-career faculty and support more early-career faculty than any other NIH grant mechanism.”

• “These data indicate institutions have a strong preference for retaining their K01, K08, and K23 awardees.” – These K grants can be awarded to early-career faculty, right? Is it possible that the apparent retention of K grantees can be explained because they were actually awarded at institutions where these individuals are currently assistant professors?

This is a good point, and I have expanded the discussion of this phenomenon on p. 30 of the Discussion.

• “These data suggest first and sometimes second quartile institutions prefer faculty candidates with K01, K08, K23, and K99 awards.” – can you draw this conclusion without knowing how many awardees applied to these institutions?

This is a good point and I appreciate the reviewer bringing it up. I have modified the text to read “These data indicate K01, K08, K23, and K99 awardees typically segregate into first and sometimes second quartile institutions.” on p. 13.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(21.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223876.r003

Decision Letter 1

Sakamuri V Reddy

27 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-22271R1

The increasing importance of fellowships and career development awards in the careers of early-stage biomedical academic researchers

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pickett,

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please revise the manuscript with changes suggested by the expert reviewer-1 as noted below.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 11 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dr. Sakamuri V. Reddy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The author has addressed previous critiques well and only one minor issue remains for this reviewer. The author indicates that "F32 awardees are nearly 6 percent more likely to receive an R01 than those who tried and failed to receive an F32...." as well as similar statements for other award mechanisms. However, the data available in NIH ExPORTER are only those applications that are funded and there is no indication in these data of unsuccessful applications for grant awards. Therefore, it is not obvious how this conclusion is reached. If others have performed such a study, a citation must be provided. Otherwise, just because a first-time R01 awardee did not have a previous F32 (or other training award) does not mean that he or she tried and failed as there are other mechanisms of support and perhaps the awardee never even applied for an F32 (or other training award).

Reviewer #2: I believe that the author has addressed my concerns. I think that the article is now fit for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS One. 2019 Oct 17;14(10):e0223876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223876.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

30 Sep 2019

Reviewer 1

• The author has addressed previous critiques well and only one minor issue remains for this reviewer. The author indicates that "F32 awardees are nearly 6 percent more likely to receive an R01 than those who tried and failed to receive an F32...." as well as similar statements for other award mechanisms. However, the data available in NIH ExPORTER are only those applications that are funded and there is no indication in these data of unsuccessful applications for grant awards. Therefore, it is not obvious how this conclusion is reached. If others have performed such a study, a citation must be provided. Otherwise, just because a first-time R01 awardee did not have a previous F32 (or other training award) does not mean that he or she tried and failed as there are other mechanisms of support and perhaps the awardee never even applied for an F32 (or other training award).

The data quoted in the indicated sentence are from previously published papers—Heggeness et al and Nikaj and Lund, references 12 and 14 respectively. I forgot to include these references in my revision, and I thank the reviewer for pointing this out. I have rectified this issue.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 2.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223876.r005

Decision Letter 2

Sakamuri V Reddy

2 Oct 2019

The increasing importance of fellowships and career development awards in the careers of early-stage biomedical academic researchers

PONE-D-19-22271R2

Dear Dr. Pickett,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Dr. Sakamuri V. Reddy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223876.r006

Acceptance letter

Sakamuri V Reddy

8 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-22271R2

The increasing importance of fellowships and career development awards in the careers of early-stage biomedical academic researchers

Dear Dr. Pickett:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sakamuri V. Reddy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. The percentage of training awardees who remained at their training institution for their R01.

(EPS)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.8MB, eps)}

S2 Fig. Likelihood of training awardees to eventually receive an R01 by institutional quartile.

(EPS)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.9MB, eps)}

S1 Table. Percentage of first-time R01 awardees with prior training awards.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(10.6KB, xlsx)}

S2 Table. Award mechanisms in each category.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(10.5KB, xlsx)}

S3 Table. Percentage of FTR01 awardees with indicated training awards.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(10.7KB, xlsx)}

S4 Table. List of institutions arrayed from most to least FTR01s from 2000 to 2017.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(31.7KB, xlsx)}

S5 Table. Percent values for datapoints in indicated figures.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(10.4KB, xlsx)}

S6 Table. Institutional names found in NIH RePORTer that were aggregated in the current study.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(13.9KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(21.9KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 2.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All data used for these analyses were downloaded from the NIH ExPORTER public database (https://exporter.nih.gov/).

[pone.0223876.ref001] 1.Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(16):5773–7. Epub 2014/04/16. 10.1073/pnas.1404402111 PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4000813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref002] 2.Daniels RJ. A generation at risk: young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(2):313–8. Epub 2015/01/07. 10.1073/pnas.1418761112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref003] 3.McDowell GS, Gunsalus KT, MacKellar DC, Mazzilli SA, Pai VP, Goodwin PR, et al. Shaping the Future of Research: a perspective from junior scientists. F1000Res. 2014;3:291 Epub 2015/02/06. 10.12688/f1000research.5878.2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref004] 4.Pickett CL, Corb BW, Matthews CR, Sundquist WI, Berg JM. Toward a sustainable biomedical research enterprise: Finding consensus and implementing recommendations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(35):10832–6. Epub 2015/07/22. 10.1073/pnas.1509901112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref005] 5.BEST. NIH Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training 2019. Available from: http://www.nihbest.org/.

[pone.0223876.ref006] 6.Blank R, Daniels RJ, Gilliland G, Gutmann A, Hawgood S, Hrabowski FA, et al. A new data effort to inform career choices in biomedicine. Science. 2017;358(6369):1388–9. Epub 2017/12/16. 10.1126/science.aar4638 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref007] 7.Xu H, Gilliam RST, Peddada SD, Buchold GM, Collins TRL. Visualizing detailed postdoctoral employment trends using a new career outcome taxonomy. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36(2):197–202. Epub 2018/01/16. 10.1038/nbt.4059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref008] 8.Pickett CL, Tilghman S. Becoming more transparent: Collecting and presenting data on biomedical Ph.D. alumni. PeerJ Preprints. 2018. 10.7287/peerj.preprints.3370v2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref009] 9.Pickett CL, Bankston A, McDowell GS. The GSS is an unreliable indicator of biological sciences postdoc population trends. bioRxiv. 2017. Epub Dec. 1, 2017. 10.1101/171314 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref010] 10.Sauermann H, Roach M. SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE. Why pursue the postdoc path? Science. 2016;352(6286):663–4. Epub 2016/05/07. 10.1126/science.aaf2061 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref011] 11.Heggeness ML, Gunsalus KT, Pacas J, McDowell G. The new face of US science. Nature. 2017;541(7635):21–3. Epub 2017/01/06. 10.1038/541021a . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref012] 12.Heggeness ML, Ginther DK, Larenas MI, Carter-Johnson FD. The Impact of Postdoctoral Fellowships on a Future Independent Career in Federally Funded Biomedical Research. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series. 2018;No. 24508. 10.3386/w24508 [DOI]

[pone.0223876.ref013] 13.van Dijk D, Manor O, Carey LB. Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Curr Biol. 2014;24(11):R516–7. Epub 2014/06/04. 10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.039 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref014] 14.Nikaj S, Lund PK. The Impact of Individual Mentored Career Development (K) Awards on the Research Trajectories of Early-Career Scientists. Acad Med. 2018. Epub 2018/12/07. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002543 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref015] 15.Kahn S, Ginther DK. The impact of postdoctoral training on early careers in biomedicine. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35(1):90–4. Epub 2017/01/11. 10.1038/nbt.3766 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref016] 16.NIH. Types of Grant Programs 2019. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm.

[pone.0223876.ref017] 17.Mantovani R, Look MV, Wuerker E. The Career Achievements of National Research Service Award Postdoctoral Trainees and Fellows: 1975–2004. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2006. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref018] 18.Michie J, Zhang X, Wells J, Ristow L, Pion G, Miyaoka A, et al. Feasibility, Design and Planning Study for Evaluating the NIH Career Development Awards. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2007. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref019] 19.Alberts B, Hyman T, Pickett CL, Tilghman S, Varmus H. Improving support for young biomedical scientists. Science. 2018;360(6390):716–8. Epub 2018/05/19. 10.1126/science.aar8405 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref020] 20.Lauer M, Tabak L, Collins F. Opinion: The Next Generation Researchers Initiative at NIH. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(45):11801–3. Epub 2017/11/09. 10.1073/pnas.1716941114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref021] 21.Pickett CL. "Bias in distribution of K99 awards and faculty hires" Rescuing Biomedical Research; 2017. Available from: http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/blog/bias-distribution-k99-awards-faculty-hires/. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref022] 22.Conte ML, Omary MB. NIH Career Development Awards: conversion to research grants and regional distribution. J Clin Invest. 2018;128(12):5187–90. Epub 2018/10/30. 10.1172/JCI123875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref023] 23.NIH. Early Stage Investigator Policies 2019. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/index.htm.

[pone.0223876.ref024] 24.Stephan P. How Economics Shapes Science: Harvard University Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref025] 25.Berg JM. "My first pass evaluation of the K99-R00 program" Datahound. 2014. Available from: https://datahound.scientopia.org/2014/07/17/my-first-pass-evaluation-of-the-k99-r00-program/.

[pone.0223876.ref026] 26.Pickett CL. "Examining the distribution of K99/R00 awards by race" Rescuing Biomedical Research; 2018. Available from: http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/blog/examining-distribution-k99r00-awards-race/. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref027] 27.Katz Y, Matter U. On the Biomedical Elite: Inequality and Stasis in Scientific Knowledge Production. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Publication; 2017. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref028] 28.Wahls WP. Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research. PeerJ. 2016;4:e1917 Epub 2016/04/15. 10.7717/peerj.1917 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0223876.ref029] 29.Clauset A, Arbesman S, Larremore DB. Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Sci Adv. 2015;1(1):e1400005 Epub 2015/11/26. 10.1126/sciadv.1400005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

The increasing importance of fellowships and career development awards in the careers of early-stage biomedical academic researchers

Christopher L Pickett

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Table 1. Information on select F and K-series awards.

Results

Fig 1. The population of first-time R01 awardees with and without training awards between 2000 and 2017.

Fig 2. Changes in indicated training awards between 2000 and 2017.

Table 2. Percentage of training awardees who go on to receive an R01.

Distribution of training awards and FTR01s among institutions

Fig 3. Share of training awardees to eventually receive an R01 by institutional quartile.

The interaction of training award and R01 quartiles

Fig 4. Interactions of training award and R01 quartiles on the distribution of training awardees.

Fig 5. Change in composition of the FTR01 population with specific training awards between 2000 and 2017 by quartile.

Data collection and limitations

Study time frame

Institutional analyses

Discussion

Strategies for gaining grant funding

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Sakamuri V Reddy

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Sakamuri V Reddy

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Sakamuri V Reddy

Roles

Acceptance letter

Sakamuri V Reddy

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases