Rethinking resource allocation in science

Johan Bollen

doi:10.5751/ES-11005-240329

Rethinking resource allocation in science

2019-01-01

0

OA

AI

DOI：10.5751/ES-11005-240329

原文链接

查看原文

摘要

En 中文

Many funding agencies rely on grant proposal peer review to allocate scientific funding, i.e., researchers compete for funding by submitting proposals that are reviewed and ranked by committees of their peers. Only a fraction of applicants are awarded the requested funds. This system has a long and venerable tradition, but it is increasingly struggling to handle the larger number of applications, suffers from high levels of administrative overhead, may be unreliable in separating successful from unsuccessful projects, and may suffer from bias against innovative ideas, young researchers, and female scientists. We have proposed redesigning funding systems according to a few simple principles, namely, focusing on funding people instead of projects and involving as many scientists in funding decisions as possible. This underpins a proposal for a novel funding system in which every scientist periodically receives an equal, unconditional amount of funding but must anonymously donate a given fraction of everything he or she receives to other scientists of his or her choice. Over time, this simple process will lead to a funding distribution that reflects the entire scientific community, fosters young scientists, and reduces overhead. However, in spite of its simplicity, we must address certain challenges in its implementation such as deciding who participates in the funding system, how to control for conflicts of interest and bias, and how to manage its application. Funding agencies will play a pivotal role in the development and management of this system.

Keyword:

computational science

peer review

science funding

science policy

self-organization

Rethinking resource allocation in science

摘要

AI总结

期刊

机构

引用论文