On the public citation graph

Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery

https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00422-16
0 signed · 213 inferred · view as graph

Inferred edges come from two machine sources: sweeps of open repository metadata (mostly SSRN and Zenodo), and a bulk OpenAlex citation snapshot. Every row below is labelled with the one it came from. Neither is a complete citation index — absence here is not evidence of absence.

Is this your work? Sign in with ORCID and put your name on the claims that are yours.
Claim with ORCID
Reference health. See whether every reference in this work resolves to a known work and none has been retracted — and get a dated CiteStamped badge you can embed.
See reference health

What this work says

Outgoing claims: the papers this work cites, builds on, or argues with.

inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1002/embr.201338068openalex-snapshot
From funding agencies to scientific agency
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_411openalex-snapshot
Meaning of Human Existence
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2openalex-snapshot
Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.02.015openalex-snapshot
Tracking publication outcomes of National Institutes of Health grants
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.08.004openalex-snapshot
American Idol and NIH Grant Review
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.007openalex-snapshot
Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.001openalex-snapshot
Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.03.001openalex-snapshot
Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.006openalex-snapshot
The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60137-9openalex-snapshot
Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11129-1openalex-snapshot
Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.3.160openalex-snapshot
Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/477529aopenalex-snapshot
Fund people not projects
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/492034aopenalex-snapshot
Conform and be funded
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/493480eopenalex-snapshot
Undo NIH policy to ease effect of cuts
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/527286aopenalex-snapshot
Racial bias continues to haunt NIH grants
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2949openalex-snapshot
How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3681openalex-snapshot
Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3050879openalex-snapshot
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504955112openalex-snapshot
Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190231217.003.0001openalex-snapshot
The Meaning of Human Existence
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31821836ffopenalex-snapshot
Sex Differences in Application, Success, and Funding Rates for NIH Extramural Programs
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530810854080openalex-snapshot
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196783openalex-snapshot
Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56openalex-snapshot
The Matthew Effect in Science
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.322.5899.189aopenalex-snapshot
Declines in NIH R01 Research Grant Funding
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.343.6171.596openalex-snapshot
Peering Into Peer Review
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.344.6182.350openalex-snapshot
At NIH, Two Strikes Policy Is Out
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7302566openalex-snapshot
Chance and Consensus in Peer Review
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0185openalex-snapshot
Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1300119openalex-snapshot
A Shortcut to Better Grantsmanship
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.01530-13openalex-snapshot
Specialized Science
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.01567-08openalex-snapshot
NIH Peer Review Reform—Change We Need, or Lipstick on a Pig?
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.06183-11openalex-snapshot
Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural Reforms
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.06184-11openalex-snapshot
Reforming Science: Structural Reforms
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00158-16openalex-snapshot
Revolutionary Science
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4797openalex-snapshot
Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100031openalex-snapshot
A proposed non-consequentialist policy for the ethical distribution of scarce vaccination in the face of an influenza pandemic
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1161/circresaha.114.302656openalex-snapshot
Percentile Ranking and Citation Impact of a Large Cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–Funded Cardiovascular R01 Grants
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1161/circresaha.115.304766openalex-snapshot
Prior Publication Productivity, Grant Percentile Ranking, and Topic-Normalized Citation Impact of NHLBI Cardiovascular R01 Grants
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002761openalex-snapshot
Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046054openalex-snapshot
Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047019openalex-snapshot
The Gambler’s Fallacy Is Associated with Weak Affective Decision Making but Strong Cognitive Ability
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068344openalex-snapshot
Are Random Trading Strategies More Successful than Technical Ones?
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118494openalex-snapshot
To Apply or Not to Apply: A Survey Analysis of Grant Writing Costs and Benefits
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.75.2.187openalex-snapshot
The prostitute, the playboy, and the poet: rationing schemes for organ transplantation.
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.2307/1060062openalex-snapshot
Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.2307/1847040openalex-snapshot
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.2307/4022491openalex-snapshot
Chronicle of Higher Education
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v3.i1.1openalex-snapshot
Serendipity in anticancer drug discovery
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-3634openalex-snapshot
Expert political judgment: how good is it? how can we know?
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.45-1430openalex-snapshot
The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.13323openalex-snapshot
NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity

What points at this work

Incoming claims: where this work appears in other papers’ reference lists and arguments.

inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4224839openalex-extracted
Buggins’ Turn in Research Funding: Exploring the Effect of Overlapping Institutional Applications on the Allocation of Research Funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4610620openalex-extracted
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4766918openalex-extracted
Speed Up or Slow Down? Impact of Research Funding on the Time Span for Academic Career Success
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4952502openalex-extracted
Optimal Allocation with Peer Information
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.3045openalex-snapshot
Provenance and Funding of Extremely Cited Biomedical Articles Published Between 2003 and 2024
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.45590openalex-snapshot
Federal Funding and Citation Metrics of US Biomedical Researchers, 1996 to 2022
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4855openalex-snapshot
Why can't we make research grant allocation systems more consistent? A personal opinion
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36822-7_7openalex-snapshot
Research Grants and Agenda Shaping
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68058-8_12openalex-snapshot
Trust and Funding Science by Lottery
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-76066-2_3openalex-snapshot
From Hadronic Bubbles to Quantum Gravity: Chasing the Infinite with Antonio Aurilia
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-08228-2_6openalex-snapshot
Erroneous Data
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-23069-0_10openalex-snapshot
Humanism and Wisdom in the AI Era
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-025-09831-6openalex-snapshot
Criminology’s Paradox: Applying the Propaganda Model to the Criminological Literature
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-024-09567-7openalex-snapshot
Crafting Cumulative Advantage: A Systemic Approach to the Career Development of Highly Productive Researchers
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00697-4openalex-snapshot
How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03672-6openalex-snapshot
Research strengths identified by esteem and bibliometric indicators: a case study at the University of Vienna
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04130-7openalex-snapshot
Imaginary carrot or effective fertiliser? A rejoinder on funding and productivity
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04163-yopenalex-snapshot
Predictors of societal and professional impact of orthodontic research. A multivariate, scientometric approach
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04836-wopenalex-snapshot
What is research funding, how does it influence research, and how is it recorded? Key dimensions of variation
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05190-1openalex-snapshot
The distribution of scientific project funds model based on adaptive similarity fitting and NSGA-II
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02479-0openalex-snapshot
Two conceptions of the sources of conservatism in scientific research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03546-9openalex-snapshot
The public relevance of philosophy
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04037-1openalex-snapshot
How should we promote transient diversity in science?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04477-9openalex-snapshot
The social contract for science and the value-free ideal
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-018-1297-5openalex-snapshot
Recommendations for Reviewers of Biomedical Imaging Grant Applications
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-018-0230-8openalex-snapshot
The division of cognitive labor: two missing dimensions of the debate
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00698-6openalex-snapshot
Funding big science: managing diversity, social responsibility, and limited resources
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.02130-8openalex-snapshot
Regimes of research and development funding in higher education
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-91259-4.00037-0openalex-snapshot
Implementation research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.026openalex-snapshot
Revising the a Priori Hypothesis: Systemic Racism Has Penetrated Scientific Funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2016.09.012openalex-snapshot
Raising awareness of the importance of funding for tuberculosis small-molecule research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2025.04.001openalex-snapshot
Rituals of reason: Experimental evidence on the social acceptability of lotteries in allocation problems
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101050openalex-snapshot
Research funding: past performance is a stronger predictor of future scientific output than reviewer scores
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.lssr.2025.06.006openalex-snapshot
An emerging paradigm for scientific decision: the AI evaluation of space science projects
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2021.100922openalex-snapshot
Amateur hour: Improving knowledge diversity in psychological and behavioral science by harnessing contributions from amateurs
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2022.101933openalex-snapshot
The impact of the pitching research framework on AFAANZ grant applications
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102247openalex-snapshot
The impact of the Pitching Research Framework on AFAANZ grant applications: A pre-registered study
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103871openalex-snapshot
Heuristics, not plumage: A response to Osterloh and Frey's discussion paper on ‘Borrowed plumes’
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103953openalex-snapshot
Administrative discretion in scientific funding: Evidence from a prestigious postdoctoral training program✰
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104514openalex-snapshot
Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104868openalex-snapshot
Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105081openalex-snapshot
Motivating innovation: The impact of prestigious talent funding on junior scientists
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.11.006openalex-snapshot
Mavericks and lotteries
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.016openalex-snapshot
On the very idea of pursuitworthiness
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.01.012openalex-snapshot
Why citizen review might beat peer review at identifying pursuitworthy scientific research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32018-3openalex-snapshot
Alternative grant models might perpetuate Black–White funding gaps
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.411openalex-snapshot
The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC): Engagement and efficacy
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.35openalex-snapshot
Peer Review, Innovation, and Predicting the Future of Science: The Scope of Lotteries in Science Funding Policy
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.49openalex-snapshot
Is Lottery a Better Way of Resource Distribution Than Baseline Funding?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.3c00430openalex-snapshot
Parsing 20 Years of Public Data by AI Maps Trends in Proteomics and Forecasts Technology
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1029/2024cn000240openalex-snapshot
Replaying the Tape of Academia: Fourteen Alternative Practices for the Physical Sciences
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01286-3openalex-snapshot
Why many funding schemes harm rather than support research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0165-4openalex-snapshot
The declining impact of the US National Institutes of Health on cancer patenting
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00907-6openalex-snapshot
Learning on knowledge graph dynamics provides an early warning of impactful research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-02005-1openalex-snapshot
The community of the DAO
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52233-xopenalex-snapshot
Impact of medical technologies may be predicted using constructed graph bibliometrics
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00891-xopenalex-snapshot
The value of research funding for knowledge creation and dissemination: A study of SNSF Research Grants
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714379115openalex-snapshot
Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401237121openalex-snapshot
Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1728506openalex-snapshot
Are peer reviews of grant proposals reliable? An analysis of Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funding applications
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1909481openalex-snapshot
Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1927727openalex-snapshot
The modified lottery: Formalizing the intrinsic randomness of research funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1806429openalex-snapshot
The lottery in Babylon—On the role of chance in scientific success
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1812485openalex-snapshot
Lotteries make science fairer
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1855806openalex-snapshot
Two dogmas of peer-reviewism
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1080/2330443x.2022.2086190openalex-snapshot
Rethinking the Funding Line at the Swiss National Science Foundation: Bayesian Ranking and Lottery
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1086/732856openalex-snapshot
Designing Scientific Grants
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223openalex-snapshot
Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx059openalex-snapshot
Centralized Funding and Epistemic Exploration
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewab019openalex-snapshot
Implementing (Un)fair Procedures: Containing Favoritism When Unequal Outcomes are Inevitable
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198869252.013.78openalex-snapshot
The Cultural Evolution of Science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa027openalex-snapshot
Science rules! A qualitative study of scientists’ approaches to grant lottery
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac007openalex-snapshot
Research calls, competition for funding and inefficiency
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac022openalex-snapshot
Peer review in funding-by-lottery: A systematic overview and expansion
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae020openalex-snapshot
Improving the efficiency of research proposals evaluation: A two-stage procedure
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae023openalex-snapshot
The practicalities of a partial lottery to allocate research funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae025openalex-snapshot
Funding lotteries for research grant allocation: An extended taxonomy and evaluation of their fairness
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae035openalex-snapshot
‘Fund people, not projects’: From narrative CVs to lotteries in science funding policy
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaf006openalex-snapshot
Sceptics and champions: participant insights on the use of partial randomization to allocate research culture funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz034openalex-snapshot
Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer review for the funding of science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab084openalex-snapshot
Research funding randomly allocated? A survey of scientists’ views on peer review and lottery
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae081openalex-snapshot
Variability and negligence: grant peer review panels evaluating impact ex ante
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190194openalex-snapshot
Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191249openalex-snapshot
Correction to ‘Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science’
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.26.400028openalex-snapshot
How to best evaluate applications for junior fellowships? Remote evaluation and face-to-face panel meetings compared
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.31.22279467openalex-snapshot
Federal Funding and Citation Metrics of Biomedical Research in the USA
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.02.25323201openalex-snapshot
Provenance and funding of extremely cited biomedical papers published in 2003-2004, 2013-2014 and 2023-2024
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1101/481655openalex-snapshot
Talent Identification at the limits of Peer Review: an analysis of the EMBO Postdoctoral Fellowships Selection Process
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12433openalex-snapshot
The Matthew effect, research productivity, and the dynamic allocation of NIH grants
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.15818openalex-snapshot
FENS‐Kavli Network of Excellence: Postponed, non‐competitive peer review for research funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.70160openalex-snapshot
Equitable Research Funding: Strategies, Challenges and the Role of Funding Agencies
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/imcb.12592openalex-snapshot
Effective or predatory funding? Evaluating the hidden costs of grant applications
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/japp.70057openalex-snapshot
Funding Research Randomly
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/jems.70009openalex-snapshot
Research Direction and Science Evaluation: The Role of Coherence and Alignment
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01369-16openalex-snapshot
Funding by Lottery: Political Problems and Research Opportunities
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01401-16openalex-snapshot
Reply to “Funding by Lottery: Political Problems and Research Opportunities”
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1128/msphere.00155-23openalex-snapshot
When Is Improvement Not? Worsening Scores after Grant Proposal Revision
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047386openalex-snapshot
Face-to-face panel meetings versus remote evaluation of fellowship applications: simulation study at the Swiss National Science Foundation
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091666openalex-snapshot
Threats to grant peer review: a qualitative study
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1145/3636509openalex-snapshot
Against Predictive Optimization: On the Legitimacy of Decision-making Algorithms That Optimize Predictive Accuracy
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1161/circep.123.012720openalex-snapshot
Arrhythmia Research at a Tipping Point: The Need for Disruptive Science and Technology
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1162/qss.a.5openalex-snapshot
Gender disparity in funding rates in double-blind grant peer review: The case of the Villum Experiment
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00002openalex-snapshot
Concentration or dispersal of research funding?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00077openalex-snapshot
Concentration of Danish research funding on individual researchers and research topics: Patterns and potential drivers
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/00380261231207196openalex-snapshot
Grieving academic grant rejections: Examining funding failure and experiences of loss
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918822744openalex-snapshot
Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/05390184221076627openalex-snapshot
Random grant allocation from the researchers’ perspective: Introducing the distinction into legitimate and illegitimate problems in Bourdieu’s field theory
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0436-0openalex-snapshot
Engaging people with lived experience in the grant review process
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-zopenalex-snapshot
The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00131-7openalex-snapshot
A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11917.1openalex-snapshot
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11917.2openalex-snapshot
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124082.3openalex-snapshot
‘Science by consensus’ impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19156.1openalex-snapshot
Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.1openalex-snapshot
Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000065openalex-snapshot
Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183967openalex-snapshot
How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239757openalex-snapshot
Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280480openalex-snapshot
Supporting grant reviewers through the scientometric ranking of applicants
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282320openalex-snapshot
Can’t We Do Better? A cost-benefit analysis of proposal writing in a competitive funding environment
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292306openalex-snapshot
Ranking versus rating in peer review of research grant applications
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317772openalex-snapshot
Assessing the potential of a Bayesian ranking as an alternative to consensus meetings for decision making in research funding: A case study of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.14267/veztud.2021.12.04openalex-snapshot
A megbízható és objektív publikációs teljesítménymérés szükségessége A gazdálkodástudományok igénye a változásra és a tudomanymetria.com projekt
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1787/2ae8c0dc-enopenalex-snapshot
Effective operation of competitive research funding systems
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1787/675cbef6-enopenalex-snapshot
Quantitative indicators for high-risk/high-reward research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v114/i09/1835-1839openalex-snapshot
SERB Merit Review Process:Adapting to Emerging Challenges
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.20411/pai.v10i2.921openalex-snapshot
Arturo Casadevall Speaks on Curiosity, Resilience, and Scientific Integrity
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4894662openalex-snapshot
Designing Scientific Grants
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv31djr2f.5openalex-snapshot
Five Models of Science, Illustrating How Selection Shapes Methods
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9sfm8openalex-snapshot
Towards inclusive funding practices for early career researchers
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/2ekcropenalex-snapshot
The Cultural Evolution of Science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/c4ujgopenalex-snapshot
Assessing the potential of a Bayesian ranking as an alternative to consensus meetings for decision making in research funding: A Case Study of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/w3xc5openalex-snapshot
How Should We Promote Transient Diversity in Science?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q2tkw_v3openalex-snapshot
Blinded versus unblinded review: A field study comparing the equity of peer review
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/cvkmwopenalex-snapshot
Starting grant with double-blinded review: An escape from the production line of big science?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/fxqr7openalex-snapshot
Diversity or Disparity? The Concentration of Funded Research Topics in the United Kingdom
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/uw3xeopenalex-snapshot
Does double-blind peer review effectively correct for gender disparities in research funding?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.33349/2018.0.4243openalex-snapshot
Ciencia pública y patrimonio: más allá de la ciencia normal y de la ciencia comunitaria
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3386/w26841openalex-snapshot
Administrative Discretion in Scientific Funding: Evidence from a Prestigious Postdoctoral Training Program
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3386/w26889openalex-snapshot
Scientific Grant Funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2025.1657050openalex-snapshot
DeScAI: the convergence of decentralized science and artificial intelligence
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.832506openalex-snapshot
We Have Sent Ourselves to Iceland (With Apologies to Iceland): Changing the Academy From Internally-Driven to Externally Partnered
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3410/f.726772120.793551762openalex-snapshot
Faculty Opinions recommendation of Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3410/f.726772120.793557759openalex-snapshot
Faculty Opinions recommendation of Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3410/f.726772120.793558467openalex-snapshot
Faculty Opinions recommendation of Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3410/f.726772120.793559699openalex-snapshot
Faculty Opinions recommendation of Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition.
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.38126/jspg180105openalex-snapshot
Towards inclusive funding practices for early career researchers
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.38126/jspg180408openalex-snapshot
Addressing Racial Disparities in NIH Funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3897/rethinkingecology.2.21798openalex-snapshot
A manifesto for fair and equitable research funding in ecology
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.2240openalex-snapshot
The Necessity of Commensuration Bias in Grant Peer Review
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2011.11274openalex-snapshot
The Impact of Research Funding on Knowledge Creation and Dissemination: A study of SNSF Research Grants
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2018.337openalex-snapshot
The AIDS Frontline, PhD Reformation and Our Definition of Scientific Rigor - An Interview with Professor Arturo Casadevall
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.51952/9781447368014.bm003openalex-snapshot
References
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.52673/18570461.21.2-61.01openalex-snapshot
Organization of research project competitions in the Republic of Moldova: lottery is better than incompetence and partiality
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.664775openalex-snapshot
Metaanalysis Of Psychoanalysis
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.5507/tk.2024.003openalex-snapshot
The replication crisis in science and its overlap with kinanthropology: an introduction (Part 2)
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.56687/9781447368014-015openalex-snapshot
References
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.7146/serendipities.v6i2.130745openalex-snapshot
Relating Democratic and Scientific Ethos in Academic Self-Governance
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.7249/rr2984openalex-snapshot
Design and development of an evaluation framework for the NHMRC: Review of international practice, overview of NHMRC's data and grant management systems, and an evaluation framework and metrics
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.7249/rr3200openalex-snapshot
The changing research landscape and reflections on national research assessment in the future
Editorial review for independent work. ICSAC — the Institute for Complexity Science and Advanced Computing — runs a structured editorial panel for researchers publishing outside journals, and publishes on CiteStamp rails. Submission is free and goes through ORCID: icsacinstitute.org/submit.