An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions

Scientometrics

Volumn 110, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 521-528

  Bollen, Johan ^a,b   Crandall, David ^a,b   Junk, Damion ^a   Ding, Ying ^a,b   Börner, Katy ^a,b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Collective intelligence; Funding; PageRank; Peer review

Indexed keywords

EID: 84984890183     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Azoulay, P., Zivin, J. S. G., & Manso, G. (2009). Incentives and creativity: Evidence from the academic life sciences. Working Paper 15466, National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w15466. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15466.
2. Azoulay, P., Zivin, J. S. G., & Manso, G. (2012). NIH peer review: Challenges and avenues for reform. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 18116.
3. Bollen, J., Rodriguez, M. A., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69(3), 669.
4. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226.
5. Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30, 107.
6. Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(1), 119–135.
7. Cole, G. S. S., & Cole, J. R. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214, 881.
8. Ding, Y., Yan, E., Frazho, A., & Caverlee, J. (2009). PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2229.
9. Editor (2010). Calm in a crisis. Nature, 468, 1002.
10. Editor (April 25 2011). Dr. No money: The broken science funding system. Scientific American.
11. Editorial (2013). Twice the price. Nature, 493(7434).
12. F.S.C. of the Federal Demonstration Partnership (2007). A profile of federal grant administrative burden among federal demonstration partnership faculty. Tech. rep. http://www.iscintelligence.com/archivos_subidos/usfacultyburden_5.pdf.
13. Geard, N., & Noble, J. (2010) Modelling academic research funding as a resource allocation problem. In 3rd world congress on social simulation.
14. Gilbert, N. (2009). Wellcome trust makes it personal in funding revamp: People not projects are the focus of longer-term grants. Nature (Online), 462(145), 145. doi:10.1038/462145a.
15. Gura, T. (2002). Scientific publishing: Peer review, unmasked. Nature, 416(6878), 258.
16. Herbert, D. L., Barnett, A. G., & Graves, N. (2013). Funding: Australia’s grant system wastes time. Nature. doi:10.1038/495314d.
17. Herbert, D. L., Coveney, J., Clarke, P., Graves, N., & Barnett, A. G. (2014). The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: A qualitative study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004462.
18. Horrobin, D. (1996). Peer review of grant applications: A harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? The Lancet, 348, 1293.
19. Ioannidis, J. M., & Nicholson, J. P. A. (2012). Research grants: Conform and be funded. Nature, 492, 34. doi:10.1038/492034a.
20. Jefferson, T. (2006). Quality and value: Models of quality control for scientific research. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05031.
21. Johnson, V. E. (2008). Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 11076.
22. Kaiser, J. (2008). Zerhouni’s parting message: Make room for young scientists. Science, 322(5903), 834.
23. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (2010). Problems of citation analysis: A study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 61(1), 1–12.
24. Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., & Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63, 160.
25. Myhrvold, N. (1998). Supporting science. Science, 282, 621.
26. National Science Foundation (2009). Fiscal year 2010 budget request to congress.
27. National Science Foundation (2015). Fy2015 agency financial report. NSF report nsf16002. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf16002.
28. Rowe, G. L., Burgoon, S., Burgoon, J., Ke, W., & Börner, K. (2007). The scholarly database and its utility for scientometrics research. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 457–462).
29. Roy, R. (1985). Funding science: The real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 10, 73.
30. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178.
31. Southwick, F. (2012). Academia suppresses creativity. The Scientist.
32. Suresh, S. (2012). Research funding: Global challenges need global solutions. Nature, 490, 337.
33. Wessely, S. (1998). Peer review of grant applications: What do we know? The Lancet, 352, 301.