An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions

@article{Bollen2016AnES,
  title={An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions},
  author={Johan Bollen and David J. Crandall and Damion Junk and Ying Ding and Katy B{\"o}rner},
  journal={Scientometrics},
  year={2016},
  volume={110},
  pages={521-528}
}
This paper presents a novel model of science funding that exploits the wisdom of the scientific crowd. Each researcher receives an equal, unconditional part of all available science funding on a yearly basis, but is required to individually donate to other scientists a given fraction of all they receive. Science funding thus moves from one scientist to the next in such a way that scientists who receive many donations must also redistribute the most. As the funding circulates through the… 
Concentration or dispersal of research funding?
TLDR
The review demonstrates a strong inclination toward arguments in favor of increased dispersal and highlights the need for more research on the interplay between science-internal mechanisms and policy priorities in accelerating concentration of funding.
Optimal distribution of science funding
  • Ding-wei Huang
  • Environmental Science
    Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
  • 2018
Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE
TLDR
Analysis of the activity of PLOS ONE editors over the journal's inaugural decade and quantitative evaluation to the gatekeepers of scientific knowledge shed light on various ethics issues crucial to science policy – in particular, calling for more transparent and structured management of editor activity in megajournals that rely on active academics.
What do we know about grant peer review in the health
Peer review decisions award an estimated >95% of Background academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved. : This paper summarises
Lorenz curves in a new science-funding model
We propose an agent-based model to theoretically and systematically explore the implications of a new approach to fund science, which has been suggested recently by J. Bollen et al.[?] We introduce
What do we know about grant peer review in the health
TLDR
Funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers’ uncertainty as an input to funding decisions, and consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process to reduce both burden and bias.
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
TLDR
Funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers’ uncertainty as an input to funding decisions, and consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process to reduce both burden and bias.
Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study
TLDR
This preliminary study of using voting was able to show that voting would take less time than traditional peer review and would spread the workload over many more reviewers, and show many of the concerns about how a voting system would work.
Science of science
TLDR
SciSci has revealed choices and trade-offs that scientists face as they advance both their own careers and the scientific horizon, and offers a deep quantitative understanding of the relational structure between scientists, institutions, and ideas, which facilitates the identification of fundamental mechanisms responsible for scientific discovery.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 39 REFERENCES
Funding Science: The Real Defects of Peer Review and An Alternative To It
The existence of the procedure of peer-review of proposals (as distinguished from review of papers or completed works) is an extraordinary phenomenon. It has survived for some 30 years because of
Chance and consensus in peer review.
An experiment in which 150 proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation were evaluated independently by a new set of reviewers indicates that getting a research grant depends to a
Incentives and Creativity: Evidence from the Academic Life Sciences
Despite its presumed role as an engine of economic growth, we know surprisingly little about the drivers of scientific creativity. In this paper, we exploit key differences across funding streams
The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation
Abstract The reliability of peer review of scientific documents and the evaluative criteria scientists use to judge the work of their peers are critically reexamined with special attention to the
Wellcome Trust makes it personal in funding revamp
The Wellcome Trust, the UK’s largest non-governmental funder of biomedical research, is giving its grant scheme a major overhaul. The trust plans to stop asking researchers to submit extensive
Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system
  • V. Johnson
  • Economics
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • 2008
TLDR
The methodology proposed in this article provides a general framework for the analysis of data collected interactively from expert panels through the use of the Delphi method and related procedures.
Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
TLDR
The authors propose a new approach, the reader system, which they evaluated with psychology and education grant proposals and found to be substantially more reliable and strategically advantageous than traditional peer reviews of grant applications.
NIH Peer Review: Challenges and Avenues for Reform
The National Institute of Health (NIH), through its extramural grant program, is the primary public funder of health-related research in the United States. Peer review at NIH is organized around the
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.
  • Richard Smith
  • Medicine
    Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
  • 2006
TLDR
Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science, the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won, yet it has until recently been unstudied.
Journal status
TLDR
The Y-factor is introduced which is a simple combination of both the ISI IF and the weighted PageRank, and it is found that the resulting journal rankings correspond well to a general understanding of journal status.
...
...