Registar    Entrar    Fórum    Pesquisar    FAQ     RSS

Índice do Fórum » Geral » Novidades, Notícias e Avisos





Criar Novo Tópico Responder a este Tópico  [ 1 mensagem ] 
Autor Mensagem
 Assunto da Mensagem: How to fix grant assessment ?
 Mensagem Enviado: Sábado Maio 12, 2018 5:38 am 
Offline
cientista sempre presente
cientista sempre presente

Registado: Quarta Dez 09, 2015 8:17 am
Mensagens: 435
Universidade/ Instituto: Minho
http://www.pnas.org/content/115/12/2952.short
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/190/16/E489
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03732.pdf
In the links above more recent studies confirm suspected biases in the peer review of grant application. This means that grant assessment is in urgent need for radical changes.

________________________________________________________________________
De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 26 de Abril de 2018 19:46
Assunto: The state of the art on grant assessment: Sloth, age bias, gender bias, articulate bias, bias against innovative research and even cronyism

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04958-9

Above link of paper published on Nature this week that addresses the case for grant assessment and the "very young talented scholars who have bad luck”. It seems that the Grant assessment business need more intelligence and less sloth. The importance of topics should matter more than the past grants won by the candidates. Unfortunately, its much easier for assessors to just look for shortcuts. And in the meantime many promising investigators have just been screwed as the article on Nature shows. Also a very interesting paper concerning a study on this field was published on F1000 platform which gives a much worse picture of grant assessment. It mention age bias, bias against innovative research and even cronyism https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1335

A more recent paper already addressed the case of articulate bias https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-2609-2 and others have shown that female scientists even need to apply under the name of male Colleagues http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/m ... 000ow.html

No doubt that all these constitute extra arguments for grant lottery systems as mentioned below and also in here https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -23015-3_9


_______________________________________________________________________
De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 7 de Abril de 2018 7:20
Assunto: Just published___"predicting research proposal success"

Abstract: Our results suggest that a clearly articulated proposal is more likely to be funded than a proposal with lower quality of discourse. https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-2609-2

Who defines which problems are important?

How much funding should go to elegantly argued proposals in topics that may seem less important to the funder?

How much funding should go to poorly articulated proposals on what are considered to be very important topics?



________________________________________________________________________
De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 2 de Março de 2018 8:11
Assunto: New head of Science Europe hopes for grant lottery system

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ne ... nders-told

It seems that someone in Europe is giving serious thought on the proposal by F. Fang (Editor in Chief of Infection and Immunity) & A.Casadevall (Founding Editor in Chief of mBio) available at http://mbio.asm.org/content/7/2/e00422-16.long under the title "Research Funding: The case for a modified lottery" also on this issue some phrases below taken from an article published on Nature last year.


Topo 
 Perfil  
Resposta com citações  
Mostrar mensagens anteriores:  Ordenar por  
 
Criar Novo Tópico Responder a este Tópico  [ 1 mensagem ] 

Índice do Fórum » Geral » Novidades, Notícias e Avisos


Quem está ligado

Utilizadores a navegar neste fórum: Nenhum utilizador registado e 8 visitantes

 
 

 
Criar Tópicos: Proibído
Responder Tópicos: Proibído
Editar mensagens: Proibído
Apagar mensagens: Proibído
Enviar anexos: Proibído

Pesquisar por:
Ir para:  
Alojamento oferecido por David A.