Why can't we make research grant allocation systems more consistent? A personal opinion
Published 2019 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Why can't we make research grant allocation systems more consistent? A personal opinion
Authors
Keywords
-
Journal
Ecology and Evolution
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 1536-1544
Publisher
Wiley
Online
2019-02-11
DOI
10.1002/ece3.4855
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications
- (2018) Elizabeth L. Pier et al. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research
- (2017) Michael Levitt et al. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Calibration with confidence: a principled method for panel assessment
- (2017) R. S. MacKay et al. Royal Society Open Science
- Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science
- (2016) Kevin J. Boudreau et al. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
- Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success
- (2016) Lindell Bromham et al. NATURE
- The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications
- (2016) Stephen A. Gallo et al. PLoS One
- NSF tries two-step review, drawing praise—and darts
- (2016) Jeffrey Mervis SCIENCE
- Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery
- (2016) Ferric C. Fang et al. mBio
- NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity
- (2016) Ferric C Fang et al. eLife
- The natural selection of bad science
- (2016) Paul E. Smaldino et al. Royal Society Open Science
- Achieving Broader Impacts in the National Science Foundation, Division of Environmental Biology
- (2015) Sean M. Watts et al. BIOSCIENCE
- Healing the NIH-Funded Biomedical Research Enterprise
- (2015) Ronald N. Germain CELL
- A generation at risk: Young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce: Fig. 1.
- (2015) Ronald J. Daniels PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- How broad are our broader impacts? An analysis of the National Science Foundation's Ecosystem Studies Program and the Broader Impacts requirement
- (2013) Nalini M Nadkarni et al. FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
- Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review
- (2013) In-Uck Park et al. NATURE
- Risky research: The sky's the limit
- (2012) Virginia Gewin NATURE
- Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices
- (2012) Hendy Abdoul et al. PLoS One
- Age dynamics in scientific creativity
- (2011) B. F. Jones et al. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Linguistic Uncertainty in Qualitative Risk Analysis and How to Minimize It
- (2008) Janet M. Carey et al. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
- Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors
- (2007) A BUDDEN et al. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
Find Funding. Review Successful Grants.
Explore over 25,000 new funding opportunities and over 6,000,000 successful grants.
ExplorePublish scientific posters with Peeref
Peeref publishes scientific posters from all research disciplines. Our Diamond Open Access policy means free access to content and no publication fees for authors.
Learn More