Discussion
Loading...

#Tag

Log in
  • About
  • Code of conduct
  • Privacy
  • Users
  • Instances
  • About Bonfire
Crossref
Crossref
@crossref@mastodon.online  路  activity timestamp 19 hours ago

馃帀 Grant DOI field is here! We're now supporting even greater #ResearchFunding transparency. Do you? https://doi.org/10.64000/x7d4h-x3r11

Your browser does not support the video tag.
This video cannot be previewed
Open original
Sorry, no caption provided by author

The best way of acknowledging research funding in the metadata: Crossref Grant ID

  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
Tatjana Scheffler boosted
Tom Stafford
Tom Stafford
@tomstafford@mastodon.online  路  activity timestamp 2 months ago

Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65660-9

New from @rmrahal and colleagues

Funder was German Foundation for Innovation in Higher Education (Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre). "Lottery-first" meant short EoI were submitted and randomisation used to select those allowed to apply

#Metascience #MetaResearch #ResearchFunding

Research funding is a key determinant of scientific progress. However, current allocation procedures for third-party funding are criticized due to high costs and biases in the selection. Here, we present data from a large German funding organization on an implementation of a lottery-first approach followed by peer review to allocate funding. We examine the changes in submissions and funded projects of female applicants after implementation, estimate the costs of the overall allocation process, and report on the attitudes and satisfaction of researchers and reviewers. The data show an increase of 10% in submissions and a 23% increase in funded projects from female applicants with the lottery-first approach compared to a previously used procedure. Additionally, the lottery-first approach was estimated to have 68% lower economic costs compared to a conventional single-stage peer review approach. Satisfaction with this funding approach was high and around half of applicants preferred an initial lottery followed by peer review over a conventional approach. Thus, the lottery-first approach is a promising addition to allocation procedures.
Research funding is a key determinant of scientific progress. However, current allocation procedures for third-party funding are criticized due to high costs and biases in the selection. Here, we present data from a large German funding organization on an implementation of a lottery-first approach followed by peer review to allocate funding. We examine the changes in submissions and funded projects of female applicants after implementation, estimate the costs of the overall allocation process, and report on the attitudes and satisfaction of researchers and reviewers. The data show an increase of 10% in submissions and a 23% increase in funded projects from female applicants with the lottery-first approach compared to a previously used procedure. Additionally, the lottery-first approach was estimated to have 68% lower economic costs compared to a conventional single-stage peer review approach. Satisfaction with this funding approach was high and around half of applicants preferred an initial lottery followed by peer review over a conventional approach. Thus, the lottery-first approach is a promising addition to allocation procedures.
Research funding is a key determinant of scientific progress. However, current allocation procedures for third-party funding are criticized due to high costs and biases in the selection. Here, we present data from a large German funding organization on an implementation of a lottery-first approach followed by peer review to allocate funding. We examine the changes in submissions and funded projects of female applicants after implementation, estimate the costs of the overall allocation process, and report on the attitudes and satisfaction of researchers and reviewers. The data show an increase of 10% in submissions and a 23% increase in funded projects from female applicants with the lottery-first approach compared to a previously used procedure. Additionally, the lottery-first approach was estimated to have 68% lower economic costs compared to a conventional single-stage peer review approach. Satisfaction with this funding approach was high and around half of applicants preferred an initial lottery followed by peer review over a conventional approach. Thus, the lottery-first approach is a promising addition to allocation procedures.
  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
Tom Stafford
Tom Stafford
@tomstafford@mastodon.online  路  activity timestamp 2 months ago

Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65660-9

New from @rmrahal and colleagues

Funder was German Foundation for Innovation in Higher Education (Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre). "Lottery-first" meant short EoI were submitted and randomisation used to select those allowed to apply

#Metascience #MetaResearch #ResearchFunding

Research funding is a key determinant of scientific progress. However, current allocation procedures for third-party funding are criticized due to high costs and biases in the selection. Here, we present data from a large German funding organization on an implementation of a lottery-first approach followed by peer review to allocate funding. We examine the changes in submissions and funded projects of female applicants after implementation, estimate the costs of the overall allocation process, and report on the attitudes and satisfaction of researchers and reviewers. The data show an increase of 10% in submissions and a 23% increase in funded projects from female applicants with the lottery-first approach compared to a previously used procedure. Additionally, the lottery-first approach was estimated to have 68% lower economic costs compared to a conventional single-stage peer review approach. Satisfaction with this funding approach was high and around half of applicants preferred an initial lottery followed by peer review over a conventional approach. Thus, the lottery-first approach is a promising addition to allocation procedures.
Research funding is a key determinant of scientific progress. However, current allocation procedures for third-party funding are criticized due to high costs and biases in the selection. Here, we present data from a large German funding organization on an implementation of a lottery-first approach followed by peer review to allocate funding. We examine the changes in submissions and funded projects of female applicants after implementation, estimate the costs of the overall allocation process, and report on the attitudes and satisfaction of researchers and reviewers. The data show an increase of 10% in submissions and a 23% increase in funded projects from female applicants with the lottery-first approach compared to a previously used procedure. Additionally, the lottery-first approach was estimated to have 68% lower economic costs compared to a conventional single-stage peer review approach. Satisfaction with this funding approach was high and around half of applicants preferred an initial lottery followed by peer review over a conventional approach. Thus, the lottery-first approach is a promising addition to allocation procedures.
Research funding is a key determinant of scientific progress. However, current allocation procedures for third-party funding are criticized due to high costs and biases in the selection. Here, we present data from a large German funding organization on an implementation of a lottery-first approach followed by peer review to allocate funding. We examine the changes in submissions and funded projects of female applicants after implementation, estimate the costs of the overall allocation process, and report on the attitudes and satisfaction of researchers and reviewers. The data show an increase of 10% in submissions and a 23% increase in funded projects from female applicants with the lottery-first approach compared to a previously used procedure. Additionally, the lottery-first approach was estimated to have 68% lower economic costs compared to a conventional single-stage peer review approach. Satisfaction with this funding approach was high and around half of applicants preferred an initial lottery followed by peer review over a conventional approach. Thus, the lottery-first approach is a promising addition to allocation procedures.
  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
Dr. Anna Latour
Dr. Anna Latour
@anna@mathstodon.xyz  路  activity timestamp 6 months ago

I'm very honoured to be among this year's NWO (Dutch Research Council) Veni research grant recipients, for my proposal "Finding Variables that Matter"!

I cannot quite believe it, but I'm excited to get started on the actual research.

Many congratulations to all of my colleagues who received their Veni grants. Over the last few months, I was lucky enough to get to know them and their research, and I can't wait to see what they do with the funds.

I'm grateful to Delft University of Technology and all my colleagues and trainers for their support and trust. The Veni application process was part of my life for almost a year. Could not have done it without their encouragement and wisdom. Many thanks also to NWO and all reviewers and committee members!

https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2025/tu-delft/record-number-veni-grants-for-leading-tu-delft-researchers

#AcademicMastodon#AcademicLife#NWO#Veni#ResearchFunding#AI#AcademicChatter#TUDelft#Research#Grateful#GoodNews

  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About 路 Code of conduct 路 Privacy 路 Users 路 Instances
Bonfire social 路 1.0.1 no JS en
Automatic federation enabled
Log in
  • Explore
  • About
  • Members
  • Code of Conduct