Another alternative funding scheme
Wagner, Caroline S.
With this new system, scientists never have to write a grant application again
By Jop de VriezeApr. 13, 2017 , 3:00 PM
AMSTERDAM—Almost every scientist agrees: Applying for research funding is a drag. Writing a good proposal can take months, and the chances of getting funded are often slim. Funding agencies, meanwhile, spend more and more time and money reviewing growing stacks of applications.
That’s why two researchers are proposing a radically different system that would do away with applications and reviews; instead scientists would just give each other money. “Self-organized fund allocation” (SOFA), as it’s called, was developed by computer scientist Johan Bollen at Indiana University in Bloomington. When he first published about the idea in 2014, many people were skeptical. But interest appears to be growing, and thanks to the work of an enthusiastic advocate, ecologist Marten Scheffer of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, the Dutch parliament adopted a motion last year asking the country’s main funding agency, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), to set up a SOFA pilot project.
Competition for funding has become too intense, especially for young scientists, Scheffer and Bollen say, and the current peer-review system is inefficient. It’s also unfair, they argue, because a few scientists get lots of grants—Scheffer is one of them—whereas many others get few or nothing. But when Scheffer explained his idea at an NWO workshop about “application pressure” here last week, the agency didn’t appear sold yet.
The duo says the numbers speak for themselves. At the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the overall success rate for grants applications has dropped from 30% in 2003 to 19.1% in 2016. In the latest round of European Research Council Starting Grants, the rate was a paltry 11.3%. At NWO, the success rate for grants for young scientists has dropped to 14%. A 2013 study estimated that writing and reviewing applications for €40 million worth of these grants costs €9.5 million annually.
In Bollen’s system, scientists no longer have to apply; instead, they all receive an equal share of the funding budget annually—some €30,000 in the Netherlands, and $100,000 in the United States—but they have to donate a fixed percentage to other scientists whose work they respect and find important. “Our system is not based on committees’ judgments, but on the wisdom of the crowd,” Scheffer told the meeting.
Bollen and his colleagues have tested their idea in computer simulations. If scientists allocated 50% of their money to colleagues they cite in their papers, research funds would roughly be distributed the way funding agencies currently do, they showed in a paper last year—but at much lower overhead costs.
Not everybody is convinced. At the meeting, some worried that scientists might give money mostly to their friends. Scheffer said an algorithm would prevent that, for instance by banning donations to people you have published with, but he acknowledged it would be a challenge in small research communities. SOFA might also result in a mismatch between what scientists need and what their colleagues donate, and a competition for donations could lead to a time-consuming and costly circus, comparable to an election campaign.
The way to find out, Scheffer and Bollen say, is a real-world test, and they say the Netherlands, a small country with short lines of communication between scientists, politicians, and funding agencies, is a good place for one. Last year, Scheffer convinced Eppo Bruins, a member of the Dutch House of Representatives, to submit a motion calling for a pilot program at NWO, which the parliament approved in June 2016. The money could be taken from a €150 million NWO pot currently distributed among consortia of innovative Dutch scientists, Bruins suggested.
But NWO is not obliged to carry out the proposal, and so far has shown little enthusiasm. “NWO is willing to explore together with scientists and other stakeholders how to improve allocation rates, but is still considering practicality and support” for SOFA, a spokesperson tells ScienceInsider. At last week’s meeting, NWO President Stan Gielen said the funds Bruins has in mind are distributed by NWO but are earmarked by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, which would have to give permission. Gielen added that any experiment should not come at the expense of existing funding.
Scheffer says he’s not giving up. It’s not a risky experiment, he says: “The money would not be wasted, after all, but just be given to other scientists.”
Science Magazine
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Barrett, Kim
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:11 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; 'Rick Anderson' <rick.a...@utah.edu>; 'Schultz, Jack C.' <schu...@missouri.edu>; 'susan' <su...@jsmf.org>; 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: dnn...@gmail.com; lau...@gigasciencejournal.com; cb...@empeerial.com; anthony....@btinternet.com
Subject: RE: Wired article on preprints in Biology
A very interesting idea with many points in its favor. I don’t think it would result in the system being flooded with applications since one would still have to clear the initial merit bar.
Kim E. Barrett, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Medicine, UC San Diego
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology
Ph: 858 534 2796
From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:37 AM
To: Barrett, Kim <kbar...@ucsd.edu>; 'Rick Anderson' <rick.a...@utah.edu>; 'Schultz, Jack C.' <schu...@missouri.edu>;
'susan' <su...@jsmf.org>; 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: dnn...@gmail.com;
lau...@gigasciencejournal.com; cb...@empeerial.com;
anthony....@btinternet.com
Subject: RE: Wired article on preprints in Biology
What do you scientists think about the idea of having grant “lotteries” instead of “awards” (see Ferric Fang’s early 2016 proposal about how a lottery system would be more advantageous to science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4959526/)? Would this help? Granted the primary purposes of this approach are to break the cycle of funding only mainstream science and distribute funding more equitably between established and upcoming researchers, but wouldn’t lotteries also relieve some of the pressure to compete for limited grant resources (that is, short of simply submitting a qualified application, there wouldn’t be an inordinate emphasis placed on the researcher’s prior publication record)? Fang argues broadly that institutionally, this approach would make budgeting at least more predictable, based on the number of grant applications submitted. Or is this just exchanging one set of problems for another---e.g., would it lead to a situation where every grant opening gets flooded with more applications that can be carefully evaluated?
From:
osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Barrett, Kim
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:58 AM
To: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>; Schultz, Jack C. <schu...@missouri.edu>; susan <su...@jsmf.org>; The Open Scholarship
Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: dnn...@gmail.com;
lau...@gigasciencejournal.com; cb...@empeerial.com;
anthony....@btinternet.com
Subject: RE: Wired article on preprints in Biology
Science will be competitive all the while you have to compete for the resources to do it. If you can’t show publications as a result of your grant, you won’t get the next one.
Kim E. Barrett, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Medicine, UC San Diego
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology
Ph: 858 534 2796
From: Rick Anderson [mailto:rick.a...@utah.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 7:31 AM
To: Schultz, Jack C. <schu...@missouri.edu>; susan <su...@jsmf.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: dnn...@gmail.com;
lau...@gigasciencejournal.com; Barrett, Kim <kbar...@ucsd.edu>;
cb...@empeerial.com;
anthony....@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: Wired article on preprints in Biology
One of the things that is striking me about this (very, very valuable) conversation is that it makes me think we haven’t been respectful enough of the idea of competition among researchers. To many of us, I think, it seems self-evident that cooperation is always better than competition — that if researchers and other scholars and scientists really understood all the issues correctly, and if they had the right mindsets, they would always cooperate with each other and they wouldn’t be so competitive. But the reality, I think, is much more complex than that: competition can be intensely generative, just as cooperation can, and for science to achieve its maximum positive effect in the world it’s probably not necessary for cooperation to drive out competition, but rather for cooperation and competition to exist in some kind of symbiosis.
If this is true, then that means we need to preserve space for some kinds and some levels of competition. And if there’s a space for competition, then that suggests that not all data can or should always be fully and immediately shared. If that’s true, then I wonder if acknowledging that reality up front is going to be an important step in the direction of effective scholcomm reform. There may well be people out there who would be more supportive of reform efforts than they are now, if it were just made clear to them that “reform” doesn’t mean that they won’t ever be able to maintain some level of control over the results of their work.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From:
<osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of "Schultz, Jack C." <schu...@missouri.edu>
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 8:06 AM
To: susan <su...@jsmf.org>, The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "dnn...@gmail.com" <dnn...@gmail.com>, "lau...@gigasciencejournal.com" <lau...@gigasciencejournal.com>,
"kbar...@ucsd.edu" <kbar...@ucsd.edu>, "cb...@empeerial.com" <cb...@empeerial.com>, Anthony Watkinson
<anthony....@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Wired article on preprints in Biology
Collaboration is an essential and widely-accepted aspect of modern science. Tough questions just can’t be addressed by solo investigators. That includes data-sharing by prior agreement. Reanalyzing publicly-accessible data without prior agreement is not collaboration.
From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of susan <su...@jsmf.org>
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:59 AM
To: The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "dnn...@gmail.com" <dnn...@gmail.com>, "lau...@gigasciencejournal.com" <lau...@gigasciencejournal.com>, "kbar...@ucsd.edu" <kbar...@ucsd.edu>, "cb...@empeerial.com" <cb...@empeerial.com>, "anthony....@btinternet.com" <anthony....@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Wired article on preprints in Biology
As someone who trained as a biochemist/biophysicist and has kept touch with active researchers in these fields over the past 30 years it is clear there has always been an active, ongoing tension between competition and cooperation. Labs could be very open about sharing reagents, tools, findings - even training individuals from other labs on techniques. In the "old days" data sharing was perhaps not so much a part of the collective spirit as unpublished data was typically thought of as something internal to the lab - BUT - unpublished findings were shared. Wearing my current hat as a funder of research - and typically skewed early career - I am seeing a spirit of openness - particularly about data. We just had a grant call for early career developmental scientists (mostly studying young children) and all were perfectly fine with our open requirements - including depositing video of the experimental set up in a open access repository among other requirements. Our grants are international and I have not (anecdotally) seen a big difference in the fields we support concerning openness among early career scientists in various countries. One exception might be open access publications - in some countries, particularly those in Latin America, our experience indicates widespread belief that all publications should be fully accessible. Of course - any "socio-cultural" issues are very field/discipline dependent and very dependent on local conditions. Those early career scientists whose futures are most tenuous might think and behave quite differently from those for whom the world is their oyster. For any scholarship on these kinds of issues I suspect the grain size of analysis is critical.
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 5:36:04 AM UTC-5, anthony.watkinson wrote:
sorry to bore on about the research I am immersed in but I have been struck by the collaborative spirit of the early career researchers in the U.K. and the U.S. whom I have interviewed - they talk a lot about their research with their colleagues and seek help on techniques etc - and on the whole they are also positive about their mentoring by advisers, PIs and supervisors. They really do believe in OPEN and SHARING. OK they do not publish OA usually and they often do not share their data because such behaviours get in the way of getting into the top journals BUT they are very aware of the lack of consistency in what they do and they blame it on the current system
Jo - may is send your email round my colleagues in China, France and Spain and maybe others. The attitudes and experiences in their countries may be different. I will not attribute? I shall report back
Anthony
------ Original Message ------
On Thursday, 27 Jul, 2017 at 10:15, Jo De wrote:Hi Laurie,
Certainly in the laboratory research culture it has been acceptable for the lab head (Herr Professor?) to pit underling lab members against each other on competing projects (student against student, post-doc against post-doc, post-docs against students?) in order to up the production factor in the lab and naturally that results in competition for publication on similar topics. I don't know whether granting agencies also do this within their grantmaking portfolios as well, but it is certainly not out of the question. This practice may somehow have evolved to affect the larger scientific community, consciously or unconsciously and ends up impacting open publishing as a victim to a culture of artificial battles for priority rather than as a collective force against the unknown.
Joann
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Laurie Goodman <lau...@gigasciencejournal.com> wrote:
I'm curious as to how quickly after a paper was posted in a preprint server someone "scooped" them?
I think at least 1/2 of the papers we have submitted, the authors say they have competition- so, I really would like to know if these proclaimed "scoops" are merely competition rather than someone taking an idea and data from a pre-print server.
The process of peer review: even if you theoretically "stole" someone's information, still takes a long long time.
So, I'd really like to get to the bottom of the 'scoop' claim, since it will scare people into not releasing information early. So, is it true and how often does it really happen?
I'm not a patent expert: but if you put something in a preprint server... it does establish a date of making available publicly, so that should limit (in so far as the courts are good...) someone stealing your patent. I don't think scientific patent decisions are based on whether it was peer reviewed, but rather on whether the information released is sufficiently complete to make it a solid record of what is to be patented. But, again, not a patent lawyer...
We're doing something a bit fun right now with my journal which is a real time peer review, where papers are submitted to bioRxiv, shunted through the journal portal to our journal, then are being peer reviewed through Academic Karma where the reviewers post their (named) reviews as soon as they are complete.
Yes, the authors and reviewers know that these reviews will be made public before a decision is made: and that the papers can be rejected.
One of the papers already has two reviews in, and the others have reviews starting to come in. It will be interesting to see what reviewers and authors think about the process. (Obviously- it isn't for everyone...)
-L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurie Goodman, PhD
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9724-5976
GigaScience, Editor-in-ChiefMain Email: edit...@gigasciencejournal.com
Website: http://www.gigasciencejournal.com
Follow us on Twitter@GigaScience; Find us at FaceBook; Read GigaBlog; Sign up for Article Alerts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Barrett, Kim <kbar...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
Publication as defined also implies validation by peers. That is why it has such currency as a proxy for academic productivity. I can disseminate all I want, but for tenure people want to see that someone in the audience cares. And your IP/idea can still be scooped whether your preprint has a DOI or not.
Kim E. Barrett, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Medicine, UC San Diego
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology
Ph: 858 534 2796
From:osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of cbaur
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 6:57 PM
To: The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Wired article on preprints in Biology
This is one the most important topics to determine how to optimize research dissemination and open access. There are two issues here:
- Culture
- Infrastructure.
The fear that research will be scooped is due to the relationship researchers have to the word "publication" and a matter of semantics from the publication process that began with the first journal publication in 1665. "Publication" protected researchers ideas by linking them to their content. But in the digital age, print publishing is no longer necessary. Research disseminated online can be linked with an author via a DOI that definitively associates a researcher with their pre-print and allows them to claim rights to their work. Hence, pre-prints with a DOI protect/prevent work from being scooped. While publication will never be abandoned (it should not be!), to remove the fear that research will be scooped a cultural change is necessary where the term "publication" is replaced with "dissemination." Instead of publishing the manuscript, researchers can use pre-print repositories or post-publication review systems to share their work. Altering any cultural pattern is not easy, especially when publication has been fundamental to the scientific process for the last 352 years! The growth and usage of pre-print repositories and social media to share work and ideas is encouraging that this cultural change can occur.
Why is it important that we change the relationship from publication to dissemination? Because although the function of the science publication system is to disseminate research, it paradoxically restricts the ability for researchers to publish research. Out of 807 clinical trials, 52% were unpublished. Out of 594 clinical trials, 50% were unpublished. Less than half of NIH-funded trials are published after 30 months of a study’s completion. After a median of 51 months, one-third of trials remain unpublished. Out of 13,000 clinical trials only 38.3% reported results. These are examples of the quantity of research that is not disseminated. Lack of publication biases the overall literature base on topics and impairs the ability to understand true estimates of efficacy and effectiveness, harming the ability to make accurate and appropriate healthcare recommendations. See my blog post here for citations: http://bit.ly/2tyCcYB
Pre-prints are a vehicle that gives researchers control over the dissemination of their research. The infrastructure then is necessary to allow pre-prints to be disseminated, as bioRxiv, and others provide, and what we, at Empeerial, are trying to develop to gives researchers maximum control over the dissemination process. By giving researchers control to share their work without fear of being scooped, the barrier for disseminating research is removed so that all evidence can be seen and evaluated pre/post-publication, which is especially important for studies that are not "sexy" with null/negative results that publishers are biased against publishing.
Giving researchers the flexibility to share/claim rights to their work, the priority then shifts from publishing work, to the science community to evaluate the methodological quality of disseminated research.
Lots of great ideas in this thread, thank you for stimulating thoughts!
Chris Baur
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 3:27:22 PM UTC-5, tscott wrote:I found this to be a very well done, balanced piece. And highly relevant to our discussions here.
Molteni, M. (2017, July 8) Biology’s roiling debate over publishing research early. Wired.
https://www.wired.com/story/biologys-roiling-debate-over-publishing-preprint-research-early/
Scott
T Scott Plutchak | Director of Digital Data Curation Strategies
UAB | The University of Alabama at Birmingham
AB 420M
O: 205-996-4716 | M: 205-283-5538
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4712-5233
Knowledge that will change your world
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')" target="_blank">osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')" target="_blank">osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')" target="_blank">osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')">osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Schultz, Jack C.
I don’t see how this can work. Among other things, there are so many potentially eligible scientists in the US that existing funding would provide a minuscule amount to each individual. (BTW who WOULD be eligible? Tenure-track faculty? Postdocs? Industry?) In fact, a STEM research program cannot be run on the hypothesized $100K/yr. One positive might be that this would force the formation of collaborative coalitions.
Countries (e.g., Canada) that have tried distributing grant money equally have inevitably found that it doesn’t produce top notch results. It may seem sad, but human nature dictates that winning is a personal motivator that leads to excellence. You can’t be ‘fair’ and excellent at the same time.
Successful scientists master the proposal writing exercise and don’t spend months on one. It’s a critical professional skill. Some of us even enjoy it.
Follow us on Twitter@GigaScience; Find us at FaceBook; ReadGigaBlog; Sign up forArticle Alerts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barrett, Kim
Well, if you really want a system that would be best by bias and cronyism, this would seem to be it!
Kim E. Barrett, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Medicine, UC San Diego
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology
Ph: 858 534 2796
Susan Fitzpatrick
Agreed. Not that we should not consider the merits or not of different kinds of systems – but we first need to be clear on what it is that the funding system is attempting to do…
And sadly – I do wish that funders would run some small scale experiments – although my own experience reinforces how difficult this is because whatever you do remains imbedded in the dominant system. I typically see a vast mismatch between the idealistic rhetoric funders use and the operations – typically the first thing a funder does is seek a “blue ribbon” panel comprised of the same people who have been running the uber-system for decades. And the first stuff that gets funded is the same old same old. It is remarkable to me how little we each seem to understand of the others worlds.
Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.
President, James S. McDonnell Foundation
Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor
SMF blog www.scientificphilanthropy.com
Fiore, Steve
Hi Everyone - Here is an editorial just published in Nature that is related to something we discussed on the OSI list last year. I'm including NSF's SciSIP list in this email, though, because the scheme is quite radical. More importantly, some of the numbers in this editorial are striking. For example, the author cites one study that found that "the European University Association in 2016 estimated that the equivalent of at least one-quarter of Europe’s Horizon 2020 funding programme goes to preparing grant applications". Another showed that "Australian scientists collectively spent more than five centuries of time preparing 3,727 proposals in 2012."
Cheers,
Steve
I want to see whether the wisdom of crowds does a better job than conventional grant review at supporting research, says Johan Bollen.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05887-3
--------
Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.
Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy
Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/)
University of Central Florida
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:58 PM
To: 'Barrett, Kim'; 'Wagner, Caroline S.'; 'Glenn Hampson'; 'Rick Anderson'; 'Schultz, Jack C.'; 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
susan
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')" target="_blank">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')" target="_blank">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')" target="_blank">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')">osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Glenn Hampson
Forwarding Susan’s reply (below---it went to OSI only) and adding my own 2 cents.
I’m not an expert in the area of research funding so apologies if this seems a bit tangential, but what about F&A charges? It seems to me anyway that this can be a very effective way of redistributing wealth. At the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center here in Seattle---which for many years has received more NIH funding than any other independent research institution in the country---the F&A charge on federal money can be very high (north of 70%). The logic is that these charges support the true total cost of research---e.g., experts and equipment that no single project or lab could supply on its own---which saves money, drives team science, and accelerates the translation of research into cures.
Does the effective application of F&A get us closer to this vision, Steve?
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')" target="_blank">osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')" target="_blank">osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')" target="_blank">osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi2...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com')">osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.