SYSTEMATIC REVIEW The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review] Ksenia Crane, Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones, Kathryn Fackrell National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Center, University of Southampton, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, Southampton, England, SO16 7NS, UK First published: 20 Jul 2023, 12:863 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133263.1 Latest published: 20 Jul 2023, 12:863 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133263.1 v1 Abstract Introduction: Reporting is a mechanism for funding organisations to monitor and manage the progress, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the research they fund. Inconsistent approaches to reporting and post-award management, and a growing demand for research information, can lead to perception of unnecessary administrative effort that impacts on decision-making and research activity. Identifying this effort, and what stakeholders see as unmet need for improvement, is crucial if funders and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are to streamline their practices and provide better support with reporting activities. In this review, we summarise the processes in post-award management, compare current practices, and explore the purpose of collecting information on funded research. We also identify areas where unnecessary effort is perceived and improvement is needed, using previously reported solutions to inform recommendations for funders and HEIs. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the relevant research and grey literature. Electronic searches of databases, and manual searches of journals and funder websites, resulted in inclusion of 52 records and 11 websites. Information on HEI and funder post-award management processes was extracted, catalogued, and summarised to inform discussion. Results: Post-award management is a complex process that serves many purposes but requires considerable effort, particularly in the set up and reporting of research. Perceptions of unnecessary effort stem from inefficiencies in compliance, data management and reporting approaches, and there is evidence of needed improvement in mechanisms of administrative support, research impact assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. Solutions should focus on integrating digital systems to reduce duplication, streamlining reporting methods, and improving administrative resources in HEIs. Conclusions: Funders and HEIs should work together to support a more efficient post-award management process. The value of Open Peer Review Approval Status AWAITING PEER REVIEW Any reports and responses or comments on the article can be found at the end of the article. Page 1 of 44 F1000Research 2023, 12:863 Last updated: 21 JUL 2023