Partial lottery can make grant allocation more fair, more efficient, and more diverse

Author:

Horbach Serge P J M1ORCID,Tijdink Joeri K23ORCID,Bouter Lex M34ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University , Bartholins Allé 7, Aarhus 8000, Danmark

2. Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit , De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands

3. Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit , De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands

4. Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit , De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands

Abstract

Abstract We call on research funding organisations to experiment with different models for integrating partial randomisation into their grant allocation processes as well as to assess the feasibility, the potential implications, and the perceptions of such models. Traditional models of grant allocation have usually been based on peer review to rank applications and allocate grants. These models have been shown to suffer from various shortcomings. In particular, we believe that partial randomisation holds the potential of being more fair, more efficient, and more diverse. In addition, it may lead to more responsible research practices. We outline a proposal for such a grant allocation process and sketch various arguments in favour of it. We also address potential counterarguments and conclude that partial randomisation in grant allocation holds the potential to lead to many benefits and therefore warrants further experimentation and implementation.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Public Administration,Geography, Planning and Development

Reference22 articles.

1. Mavericks and lotteries;Avin;Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A,2019

2. The Experimental Research Funder’s Handbook (Rori Working Paper No.6);Bendiscioli,2021

3. The Matthew Effect in Science Funding;Bol;Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2018

4. Arbitrariness in the Peer Review Process;Brezis;Scientometrics,2020

5. Chance and Consensus in Peer Review;Cole;Science,1981

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3