From funding agencies to scientific agency: Collective allocation of science funding as an alternative to peer review.
作者信息
Bollen Johan, Crandall David, Junk Damion, Ding Ying, Börner Katy
机构信息
School of Informatics and Computing Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
出版信息
EMBO Rep. 2014 Feb;15(2):131-3. doi: 10.1002/embr.201338068. Epub 2014 Jan 7.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
From funding agencies to scientific agency: Collective allocation of science funding as an alternative to peer review.
EMBO Rep. 2014 Feb;15(2):131-3. doi: 10.1002/embr.201338068. Epub 2014 Jan 7.
2
Triaging Shakespeare.
Elife. 2015 Mar 17;4:e07157. doi: 10.7554/eLife.07157.
3
Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.
Circ Res. 2017 Aug 4;121(4):e9-e19. doi: 10.1161/RES.0000000000000158. Epub 2017 Jul 6.
4
Real lives and white lies in the funding of scientific research: the granting system turns young scientists into bureaucrats and then betrays them.
PLoS Biol. 2009 Sep;7(9):e1000197. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000197. Epub 2009 Sep 15.
5
Israel weighs up new funding agency.
Nature. 2009 Dec 10;462(7274):712. doi: 10.1038/462712a.
6
'Science by consensus' impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research.
F1000Res. 2024 Feb 21;11:961. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.124082.3. eCollection 2022.
7
Should we welcome food industry funding of public health research?
BMJ. 2016 Apr 20;353:i2161. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2161.
8
Why China needs an NIH.
Nature. 2004 Apr 15;428(6984):679. doi: 10.1038/428679b.
9
Funding nutrition research: where's the money?
Nutr Clin Pract. 2007 Dec;22(6):609-17. doi: 10.1177/0115426507022006609.
10
Why we still need grant peer review.
EMBO Rep. 2014 May;15(5):465-6. doi: 10.1002/embr.201438671.
引用本文的文献
1
'Science by consensus' impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research.
F1000Res. 2024 Feb 21;11:961. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.124082.3. eCollection 2022.
2
Rethinking academia in a time of climate crisis.
Elife. 2023 Feb 7;12:e84991. doi: 10.7554/eLife.84991.
3
Novel idea generation in social networks is optimized by exposure to a "Goldilocks" level of idea-variability.
PNAS Nexus. 2022 Nov 24;1(5):pgac255. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac255. eCollection 2022 Nov.
4
What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2022 Mar 4;7(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s41073-022-00120-2.
5
Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists' perspective.
J Evol Biol. 2019 Aug;32(8):754-768. doi: 10.1111/jeb.13497. Epub 2019 Jul 5.
6
Theoretical research without projects.
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 28;14(3):e0214026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214026. eCollection 2019.
7
Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions.
PLoS Biol. 2019 Jan 2;17(1):e3000065. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000065. eCollection 2019 Jan.
8
A new paradigm for the scientific enterprise: nurturing the ecosystem.
F1000Res. 2018 Jun 20;7:803. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15078.1. eCollection 2018.
9
Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017 Sep 15;2:16. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0. eCollection 2017.
10
Innovation at the Intersection of Alcohol and HIV Research.
AIDS Behav. 2017 Nov;21(Suppl 2):274-278. doi: 10.1007/s10461-017-1926-z.
本文引用的文献
1
Calm in a crisis.
Nature. 2010 Dec 23;468(7327):1002. doi: 10.1038/4681002a.
2
Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12;105(32):11076-80. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804538105. Epub 2008 Jul 28.
3
Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
Am Psychol. 2008 Apr;63(3):160-8. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160.
Zotero 插件