使用抽签方式分配研究资金的可接受性：对申请者的一项调查。
The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants.
作者信息
Liu Mengyao, Choy Vernon, Clarke Philip, Barnett Adrian, Blakely Tony, Pomeroy Lucy
机构信息
1Health Research Council of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand.
2Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
出版信息
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 Feb 3;5:3. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z. eCollection 2020.
BACKGROUND
The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants.
METHODS
This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application.
RESULTS
The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% ( = 79) in favour and 25% ( = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% ( = 50) in favour and 37% ( = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application.
CONCLUSIONS
The Health Research Council's experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.
背景
新西兰健康研究委员会是首个主要的政府资助机构，采用抽签方式为其探索者资助计划分配研究资金。这是一种颇具争议的方法，因为尽管同行评议存在诸多问题，但许多研究人员认为资金应仅通过同行评议来分配，且全球各地的资助机构几乎都普遍采用同行评议。鉴于替代资助计划的稀缺性，人们有兴趣听取首批经历抽签的研究人员的意见。此外，新西兰健康研究委员会希望听取申请人对随机化过程及申请人匿名性的可接受性的看法。
方法
本文展示了对2013年至2019年新西兰健康研究委员会申请人的一项调查结果。该调查询问了使用抽签的可接受性，以及抽签是否意味着研究人员在申请时采取了不同的方法。
结果
总体回复率为39%（325份邀请中有126份回复），2013年至2018年的申请人回复率为30%（251份中有76份），2019年不知晓资助结果的申请人回复率为68%（74份中有50份）。63%（n = 79）的人赞成将随机化作为分配探索者资助资金的可接受方法，25%（n = 32）反对。对于为其他资助类型随机分配资金的支持较少，只有40%（n = 50）赞成，37%（n = 46）反对。在获得资助的人中，对抽签的支持率更高。多名受访者表示，当排除不合格申请并资助优秀申请，使剩余申请真正平等时，他们支持抽签。大多数申请人报告称，抽签并未改变他们准备申请所花费的时间。
结论
新西兰健康研究委员会通过探索者资助计划的经验支持进一步采用改良后的抽签方式。
Zotero 插件