The SAGES Research Awards are open to any principal investigator who is a current SAGES member, including Candidate Members. Please read all the guidelines carefully. SAGES would like to especially encourage grant funding to young investigators/candidate members in the hopes that funding through SAGES will lead to additional extramural funding.

SAGES considers a Young Investigator as someone who has not practiced surgery independently for more than 5 years

Awards are conferred on a competitive basis by submission of a grant application, which is assessed by the SAGES Research and Career Development Committee, in a blinded fashion, free of conflict of interest. Ultimately the recommended grantees are approved by the governing board*

Available Research Grants

The purpose of these grants is to stimulate original research in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery. The study may be either “bench” research or clinical.

• Grants are limited to no more than $30,000 each, for 1-year period
• Made to the Institution

In the spirit of supporting the goals of our membership, applicants are encouraged to review: 2021 Surgical Endoscopy- SAGES Research Priorities for a recent review of key research questions. Part of the grant review process includes evaluation of the importance of the research question. The review committee will incorporate these published rankings to determine the importance of submitted topics.

PLEASE NOTE: the committee will only fund grants that involve commercially available products.

Please see the grant recipients from 1992-Present. We encourage applicants to review to avoid duplicate studies.

Grant Guidelines

It is assumed that some of the resources required to conduct the project are available through the investigator’s institution. The research grant serves to provide supplemental support for personnel (not including the salary of the principal investigator), equipment, or services required to complete the research.

The principal evaluation criteria are (1) scientific merit, (2) experimental design, (3) potential of the proposed topic, (4) qualifications of the applicant(s), (5) facilities, and (6) grantsmanship.

Awards are based on the scientific merit of the project as well as the investigator’s capability and the likelihood that the project will be completed successfully. Considerations include the investigator’s experience, background, availability of patient material and other resources. In the case of a young investigator, the experience and background of the Co-PI mentor will be considered. SAGES considers a Young Investigator as someone who has not practiced surgery independently for more than 5 years; funding for young investigators are viewed favorably and encouraged to apply for these grants.

Applicants must ensure that the team of investigators has the appropriate expertise to carry out the proposed research with high methodologic standards. For example, proposals that include cost analyses should include collaborators with expertise in economic or cost-effectiveness analysis and should use rigorous methods for costing and analysis. Comparative clinical studies must account for selection bias and expertise bias in the performance of surgical procedures; studies, where the technical skill of surgeons differs between comparison groups, are unlikely to provide valid estimates of relative treatment effects. It is the responsibility of the applicants to demonstrate how they will minimize bias in their proposals.

Requirements of Grantees

The following requirements must be met by the Investigators who receive the award:

• Investigators are required to submit semi-annual updates to the SAGES Research Committee during the course of the research, starting 6 months after the grant has been awarded.
• At the conclusion of the project, the investigator is required to submit a final update report to the Research Committee
• An abstract must be submitted for the SAGES Scientific Session, which immediately follows the successful completion of the work
• If the updates are not sent, SAGES may need to recover the monies awarded
• A manuscript on the study and your findings must be sent to Surgical Endoscopy. A copy of the final manuscript must be sent to the SAGES office in order for the grant to be considered complete. SAGES must be acknowledged as a funding source. We discourage that your work is submitted to other journals and is only eligible to be submitted if it is denied by Surgical Endoscopy. 

If these terms and conditions are not met, subsequent applications from the PI and co-PI will be viewed unfavorably for future funding through the SAGES research grant program.

Since research facilities are factored into funding decisions by the Research and Career Development Committee, the primary investigator must inform the SAGES office if he or she leaves his or her institution during the course of completing this research. The SAGES Research Committee chair will work with the investigator to determine if the research funds will stay with the initial institution or move with the investigator. SAGES reserves the right to make this final decision.

SAGES Research Committee understands that studies may need modification during the execution phase. If a study design is modified, the primary investigator MUST notify the committee. The committee will then review the suggested changes and decide whether they will continue to fund the new study.

Conflict of Interest Guidelines

As part of the submission process, disclosures from all known authors must be provided at the time of submission. Because we are interested in funding a diverse pool of applications, we also ask if anyone listed in your grant has received prior funding from SAGES.

Indirect Cost Policy

• The monies SAGES awards for research grants are intended for use as seed money only and no indirect costs may be charged against these awards.

Important Guidelines & Instructions

• SAGES grants must be submitted online and you must be logged in as a member to submit a grant application.
• If the page limits and guidelines are not followed, the application will be not be reviewed.
• Appendices will not necessarily be reviewed. Add appendices at your own risk.

AI Based Application Success Predictor

1. Direct relevance to gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery (highest predictor)

This is the most important success factor.

Competitive proposals should focus on:

• Minimally invasive surgery
• Laparoscopic surgery
• Robotic surgery
• Flexible endoscopy
• Therapeutic endoscopy
• Bariatric and metabolic surgery
• Foregut surgery
• Hernia surgery
• Colorectal surgery
• Hepatobiliary surgery
• Surgical innovation
• Surgical education
• Simulation and surgical training

Projects outside gastrointestinal or endoscopic surgery are generally not competitive.

2. Innovation and potential to advance surgical practice (very high predictor)

Innovation is a defining characteristic of SAGES funding.

Competitive proposals often investigate:

• Novel minimally invasive techniques
• Robotic technologies
• AI-assisted surgery
• Image-guided surgery
• Advanced endoscopic procedures
• Surgical simulation
• Digital surgery
• New devices and technologies

Projects that can transform surgical practice or education are particularly competitive.

3. Strong scientific merit and rigorous methodology (very high predictor)

Applications undergo blinded peer review by the SAGES Research and Career Development Committee.

Competitive proposals should include:

• Clearly defined hypotheses
• Strong scientific rationale
• Appropriate study design
• Robust statistical analysis
• Realistic milestones
• Clearly defined outcome measures

Methodological rigor is a central criterion in funding decisions.

4. Strong clinical relevance and patient impact (very high predictor)

Successful projects should demonstrate potential to improve:

• Surgical outcomes
• Patient safety
• Operative efficiency
• Recovery after surgery
• Quality of care
• Surgical education
• Decision-making
• Healthcare value

Projects with a direct pathway to improving minimally invasive surgical care are especially well aligned with SAGES' mission.

5. Early-career investigator development (very high and distinctive predictor)

SAGES explicitly encourages funding young investigators.

For Research Grants, a Young Investigator is generally defined as a surgeon within five years of independent practice.

Competitive applicants demonstrate:

• Strong academic promise
• Commitment to academic surgery
• Leadership potential
• Long-term research goals

Supporting future leaders in gastrointestinal surgery is a major objective of SAGES funding.

6. Strong mentorship and institutional support (very high predictor)

Competitive applications typically include:

• Experienced mentor(s)
• Supportive academic department
• Protected research time
• Access to research facilities
• Appropriate collaborators

For the Career Development Award, letters from the department chair and host institution describing institutional commitment are required.

7. Potential to generate future external funding (very high predictor)

SAGES explicitly states that its grants are intended to serve as seed funding leading to additional extramural funding.

Competitive proposals explain how the project will:

• Generate preliminary data
• Support NIH or foundation applications
• Lead to multicenter trials
• Establish an independent research program

Projects that clearly position investigators for future competitive funding are particularly attractive.

8. Strong educational and career-development value (high predictor)

For the Career Development Award, reviewers evaluate how the proposed activities will contribute to long-term academic development.

Competitive plans may include:

• Advanced research training
• Leadership development
• Specialized surgical fellowships
• Educational methodology
• Simulation training
• Protected academic time

Applicants should explain how the award will contribute to their future career and improve patient care.

9. Feasible project design and realistic implementation (high predictor)

Competitive applications demonstrate:

• Appropriate project scope
• Realistic timeline
• Achievable milestones
• Well-justified budget
• Available institutional resources

Because SAGES grants are intended as pilot funding, focused and feasible projects are generally more competitive than overly ambitious proposals.

10. Dissemination and contribution to the SAGES community (high predictor)

Awardees are expected to:

• Submit progress reports
• Present findings at the SAGES Scientific Session
• Submit a manuscript to Surgical Endoscopy
• Acknowledge SAGES funding in publications

Failure to meet these post-award obligations may negatively affect eligibility for future SAGES funding.