Effective or predatory funding? Evaluating the hidden costs of grant applications

Researchers are spending an increasing fraction of their time on applying for funding. This raises the question whether investments into the funding distribution system are well spent with respect to its ultimate purpose: to support research. Multiple studies suggest that the current funding system has considerable deficiencies in reliably evaluating the merit of research proposals, despite extensive efforts on the sides of applicants, grant reviewers and decision committees. The sum of these efforts decreases the efficiency of research investments: for some funding schemes, the systemic costs of the application process as a whole may even outweigh the granted resources - a phenomenon that could be considered as predatory funding. We present five recommendations to remedy this unsatisfactory situation: (1) to explicitly weigh cost vs. benefits before publishing a call (or applying for it); (2) to increase transparency to allow such calculations; (3) to reduce the paperwork and time expenditure required for proposal submission; 4) to remove or reduce ulterior motives for grant applications; and (5) to adopt alternative funding distribution strategies.