Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency

Genevieve, David; Milanesi, Elena; Koenig, Thomas

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010

Cited by 25 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, most funding agencies publish a list of funded projects; many agencies publish the abstracts of funded projects. Gurwitz et al 33 proposed 3 measures that all agencies could implement quickly that would enhance the robustness of the peer review system. These measures are a published list of the members of the review panels and any external reviewers, a published impact statement of each funded project, and a public final report for each funded project.…”

Section: Comprehensive Proposals To Reform Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Liaw¹,

Freedman²,

Becker³

et al. 2017

Circulation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biomedical research enterprise depends on the fair and objective peer review of research grants, leading to the distribution of resources through efficient and robust competitive methods. In the United States, federal funding agencies and foundations collectively distribute billions of dollars annually to support biomedical research. For the American Heart Association, a Peer Review Subcommittee is charged with establishing the highest standards for peer review. This scientific statement reviews the current literature on peer review practices, describes the current American Heart Association peer review process and those of other agencies, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of American Heart Association peer review practices, and recommends best practices for the future

show abstract

Section: Comprehensive Proposals To Reform Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Liaw¹,

Freedman²,

Becker³

et al. 2017

Circulation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can again happen in an incremental form, meaning that some knowledge within the peer review process is made openly accessible, or in a radical form, meaning that transparency of knowledge becomes a separate pillar of legitimacy itself (cf. Gurwitz, Milanesi, and Koenig 2014). Open peer review is currently a highly contested field and so is the choice of respective indicators.…”

Section: Indicators Cluster I: Conceptualisation and Data Gathering/crementioning

confidence: 99%

New indicators for open science - Possible ways of measuring the uptake and impact of open science

Lampert¹,

Lindorfer²,

Prem³

et al. 2017

JRTPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O pen science (OS) opens up new ways of creating and sharing knowledge and of disseminating various kinds of results, such as traditional articles, research data, computational and mathematical codes, 3D models, interactive visualisations, or microinsights. Moreover, OS offers the chance to introduce new ways of evaluating science in a more nuanced, fair, and precise way. As the recent 'altmetrics' push has shown, there is wide agreement that conventional approaches to science evaluation are inadequate. With the open movement becoming stronger -especially in science -, it is a good time to reflect on potential new indicators to gauge the uptake and impact of OS. This conceptual work aims to offer a vantage point for more substantial discussions among the key stakeholders.

show abstract

“…A transparent process could allow applicants to be confident that they have been treated fairly (Gurwitz et al 2014), and these modifications could "… increase the number of funded investigators and harness a greater diversity of tools, perspectives and creative ideas" (Fang et al 2016a). It would also give all those within the scientific community confidence that "… if my idea is good enough, I'm good enough".…”

Section: There Must Be a Better Waymentioning

confidence: 99%

A manifesto for fair and equitable research funding in ecology

Winder¹,

Hodge²

2017

ReEco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The way in which research funding is allocated by both governmental and non-governmental research agencies needs to be revamped to avoid bias and encourage innovation. Known biases in allocation of funding include those driven by gender, race, institution size, geographic location and interdisciplinary study. We also contend that the peer-review process itself provides an apparently fair process, but that the flaws within it work against funding innovative science. We propose an unbiased process that combines the use of short proposals, blinded review and a lottery to allocate funding.

show abstract

Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency

Abstract: Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency Public funding agencies should be more transparent in awarding research grants to allow researchers and the public better insight into decision making.

Cited by 25 publications

References 24 publications

Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

New indicators for open science - Possible ways of measuring the uptake and impact of open science

A manifesto for fair and equitable research funding in ecology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About