De Peuter, Steven and Conix, Stijn (2021) The modified lottery: Formalizing the intrinsic randomness of research funding. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance.
This is the latest version of this item.
![[img]](https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
!De Peuter Conix Randomness Accepted Version.docx Download (77kB) |
Abstract
Competition for research funds has, in the recent decade, become hypercompetitive. Commonly, to determine which proposals receive funding, a system of peer review is used, which is broadly accepted, easily understood, and broadly trusted among researchers. It is often considered the best system in use, but it suffers from important shortcomings, and adaptations to overcome these shortcomings have small and often short-lived effects. Hence, the preference for peer review does not mean it necessarily outperforms all other systems. In fact, it is time for an open discussion about alternative allocation mechanisms. Random allocation of research funding may be a viable alternative to the current peer review system. In particular the “organized randomness” of a modified lottery is interesting, combining the benefits of randomization with some of the most valuable aspects of peer review. Still, many questions remain and this is certainly not a plea to allocate all research funds using lotteries without further research. But we need to be prepared to consider alternatives, even though they are not perfect, and modified lotteries should be part of the solution.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
| Item Type: | Published Article or Volume | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creators: |
|
|||||||||
| Keywords: | Grant peer review, lottery, randomness, research funding, research integrity | |||||||||
| Subjects: | General Issues > Ethical Issues General Issues > Science and Policy |
|||||||||
| Depositing User: | Dr. Steven De Peuter | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 21 May 2021 02:13 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 21 May 2021 02:13 | |||||||||
| Item ID: | 19064 | |||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance | |||||||||
| Publisher: | Taylor & Francis | |||||||||
| DOI or Unique Handle: | 10.1080/08989621.2021.1927727 | |||||||||
| Subjects: | General Issues > Ethical Issues General Issues > Science and Policy |
|||||||||
| Date: | 7 May 2021 | |||||||||
| URI: | https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/19064 |
Available Versions of this Item
-
When randomness is intrinsic, formalize it. (deposited 06 Mar 2021 17:02)
- The modified lottery: Formalizing the intrinsic randomness of research funding. (deposited 21 May 2021 02:13) [Currently Displayed]
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Altmetric.com
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}