National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants have evolved over time, with a greater proportion of funds going to solicited projects, but inflation-adjusted costs have remained relatively stable following a brief increase during the NIH-doubling (1998-2003).

Funding inequalities for NIH-supported research project grant investigators and organizations have increased over the past 25 years, but have modestly decreased over the past 3 years.

A survey of health and medical researchers revealed important diffrences in how career disruption is treated in funding decisions, with differences in what applicants with disruption are willing to divulge and the adjustments made by reviewers.

There is a systemic bias in research evaluation, i.e., disciplines with a higher proportion of women have lower evaluations and funding success for all researchers, regardless of gender.

White principal investigators applying to the National Science Foundation are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs.

When making decisions about funding and jobs the scientific community should recognise that most of the tools used to evaluate scientific excellence are biased in favour of established disciplines and against interdisciplinary research.

The decrease in alpha rhythm amplitude in the parietal regions after the presentation of a deviant auditory stimulus gives rise to a part of the P300-evoked response.

In the first study attempting to formally quantify the deleterious impact of research misconduct on funding sources and publication output, we found that misconduct accounts for a small but substantial portion of American biomedical science funding dollars and damages the productivity and rate of funding acquisition of those who commit misconduct.

Open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers.

Blinding the initial review of applications for Beckman Young Investigator awards reduces prestige bias, but has no impact on the success rates for different genders.