Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency

PLoS Biology

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2014, Pages

  Gurwitz, David ^a   Milanesi, Elena ^a   Koenig, Thomas ^b  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; CONTENT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIAL ASPECTS AND RELATED PHENOMENA; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; TRANSPARENCY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE;

FINANCING, ORGANIZED; KNOWLEDGE; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC;

EID: 84924046333     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Heinze T, (2008) How to sponsor ground-breaking research: a comparison of funding schemes. Sci Public Policy 35: 302–318 doi:10.3152/030234208X317151
2. Stephan P (2013) How economics shapes science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3. Mutz R, Bornmann L, Daniel HD, (2012) Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: a general estimating equations approach. PLoS ONE 7: e48509 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048509
4. Abdoul H, Perrey C, Amiel P, Tubach F, Gottot S, et al. (2012) Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices. PLoS ONE 7: e46054 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046054
5. Bhattacharjee Y, (2012) Science funding. NSF's ‘Big Pitch’ tests anonymized grant reviews. Science 336: 969 doi:10.1126/science.336.6084.969
6. Mervis J, (2014) Peering into peer review. Science 343: 596–598 doi:10.1126/science.343.6171.596
7. Schroter S, Groves T, Højgaard L, (2010) Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives. BMC Med 8: 62 doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-62
8. Lamont M (2009) How Professors Think Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
9. Nowotny H, Exner P, (2013) Improving ERC ethical standards. Science 341: 1043 doi:10.1126/science.1244098
10. Full disclosure. Nature 507: 8.
11. Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y (2009) Acting in an uncertain world. An essay on technological democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
12. Felt U, Barben D, Irwin A, Joly P-B, Rip A, et al. (2013) Science in Society: caring for our futures in turbulent times. ESF Science Policy Briefing 50 Available: http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/spb50_ScienceInSociety.pdf. Accessed 27 October 2014.
13. NIH Reporter 2013. Available: http://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/index.aspx?catid=12. Accessed 27 October 2014.
14. Herbert DL, Barnett AG, Clarke P, Graves N, (2013) On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open 3: e002800 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800
15. Coryn CLS, Applegate EB, Schröter DC, Martens KS, McCowen RH (2012) An evaluation of the transparency and overall quality of evaluation at the Swiss National Science Foundation: Final report. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University. Available: http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/Web-News/news-130221-auswahlverfahren-snf-evaluationsbericht.pdf. Accessed 27 October 2014.
16. Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C, (2007) Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18: MR000003 doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000003.pub2
17. Ioannidis JP, (2011) More time for research: fund people not projects. Nature 477: 529–531 doi:10.1038/477529a
18. Mietchen D, (2011) Peer reviews: make them public. Nature 473: 452 doi:10.1038/473452b
19. Marris C, Rose N, (2010) Open Engagement: Exploring Public Participation in the Biosciences. PLoS Biol 8: e1000549 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000549
20. Masum H, Rao A, Good BM, Todd MH, Edwards AM, et al. (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Cultivating Open Science and Collaborative R&D. PLoS Comput Biol 9: e1003244 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003244
21. OECD (2013) Main Science and Technology Indicators 2013. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/msti-v2013-2-en. Accessed 27 October 2014.
22. van Bekkum JE, Hilton S, (2014) UK research funding bodies' views towards public participation in health-related research decisions: an exploratory study. BMC Health Serv Res 14: 318 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-318
23. Global Research Council. http://www.globalresearchcouncil.org/
24. Reviewer Index: Volumes 193, 194, 195 January–December 2013. Genetics 195: 1423–1427.
25. Merton RK, (1986) The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159: 56.
26. Kumar AH, (2014) Open review system: The new trend in scientific reviewing to improve transparency and overcome biasness. J Nat Sci Biol Med 5: 231–232 doi:10.4103/0976-9668.136134
27. van Noorden R, (2014) Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature 512: 126–129 doi:10.1038/512126a
28. Shanahan DR, Olsen BR, (2014) Opening peer-review: the democracy of science. J Negat Results Biomed 13: 2 doi:10.1186/1477-5751-13-2