The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding

PLoS Biology

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2014, Pages

  Mietchen, Daniel ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTION AND BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EFFECT SIZE; FUNDING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; POLICY; PUBLICATION; STANDARD; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH;

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC;

EID: 84924071564     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Gurwitz D, Milanesi E, Koenig T, (2014) Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency. PLoS Biol 12: e1002010.
2. Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C (2007) Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: MR000003. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000003.pub2
3. Azoulay P, (2012) Research efficiency: Turn the scientific method on ourselves. Nature 484: 31–32.
4. Agrawal A, Goldfarb A, (2008) Restructuring Research: Communication Costs and the Democratization of University Innovation. Am Econ Rev 98: 1578–1590.
5. Levine SS, Prietula MJ, (2014) Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance. Organization Science 25: 1414–1433.
6. Slaughter AE, Gaston DR, Peterson J, Permann CJ, Andrs D, et al. (2014) Continuous Integration for Concurrent MOOSE Framework and Application Development on GitHub. FigShare. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1112585
7. Peixoto T, (2009) Beyond Theory: e-Participatory Budgeting and its Promises for eParticipation. European Journal of ePractice 7: 55–63.
8. Baiocchi G, Lerner J, (2007) Could Participatory Budgeting Work in the United States? The Good Society 16: 8–13.
9. Smith CL, (2012) The Large Hadron Collider: lessons learned and summary. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 370: 995–1004.
10. Wheat RE, Wang Y, Byrnes JE, Ranganathan J, (2013) Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends Ecol Evol 28: 71–72.
11. Zeilberger D (2011) Appendix to Doron Zeilberger's Opinion 117: Links to posted Grant Proposals. Opinions of Doron Zeilberger. Available: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion117Appendix.html (archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6TpTmJZUC). Accessed 24 November 2014.
12. White E (2012) A list of publicly available grant proposals in the biological sciences. Jabberwocky Ecology. Available: http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/2012/08/10/a-list-of-publicly-available-grant-proposals-in-the-biological-sciences/(archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6TpTl9Z84). Accessed 24 November 2014.
13. Mietchen D, (2011) Peer reviews: make them public. Nature 473: 452–452.
14. Pöschl U, (2009) Interactive Open Access Peer Review: The Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Model. Against the Grain 21: 11.
15. Bourne PE, Chalupa LM, (2006) Ten simple rules for getting grants. PLoS Comput Biol 2: e12.
16. Nicholson JM, Ioannidis JP, (2012) Research grants: conform and be funded. Nature 492: 34–36.
17. Tatsioni A, Vavva E, Ioannidis JP, (2010) Sources of funding for Nobel Prize-winning work: public or private? FASEB J 24: 1335–1339.
18. Ioannidis JP, (2011) More time for research: fund people not projects. Nature 477: 529–531.
19. Patil C, Siegel V, (2009) This revolution will be digitized: online tools for radical collaboration. Dis Model Mech 2: 201–205.
20. Celi LA, Ippolito A, Montgomery RA, Moses C, Stone DJ, (2014) Crowdsourcing Knowledge Discovery and Innovations in Medicine. J Med Internet Res 16: e216.
21. Franzoni C, Sauermann H, (2014) Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Res Policy 43: 1–20.
22. Gowers T, Nielsen M, (2009) Massively collaborative mathematics. Nature 461: 879–881.
23. Rohde H, Qin J, Cui Y, Li D, Loman NJ, et al. (2011) Open-source genomic analysis of Shiga-toxin–producing E. coli O104: H4. N Engl JMed 365: 718–724.
24. Stephan P, (2012) Research efficiency: Perverse incentives. Nature 484: 29–31.
25. Gordon R, Poulin BJ, (2009) Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant. Account Res 16: 13–40.
26. Kaiser J, (2014) A call for NIH youth movement. Science 346: 150–151.
27. Fortin JM, Currie DJ, (2013) Big science vs. little science: how scientific impact scales with funding. PLoS ONE 8: e65263.