Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study.

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS
Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2017-09-15 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0
Adrian G Barnett, Philip Clarke, Cedryck Vaquette, Nicholas Graves
{"title":"Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study.","authors":"Adrian G Barnett, Philip Clarke, Cedryck Vaquette, Nicholas Graves","doi":"10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Winning funding for health and medical research usually involves a lengthy application process. With success rates under 20%, much of the time spent by 80% of applicants could have been better used on actual research. An alternative funding system that could save time is using democracy to award the most deserving researchers based on votes from the research community. We aimed to pilot how such a system could work and examine some potential biases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used an online survey with a convenience sample of Australian researchers. Researchers were asked to name the 10 scientists currently working in Australia that they thought most deserved funding for future research. For comparison, we used recent winners from large national fellowship schemes that used traditional peer review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Voting took a median of 5 min (inter-quartile range 3 to 10 min). Extrapolating to a national voting scheme, we estimate 599 working days of voting time (95% CI 490 to 728), compared with 827 working days for the current peer review system for fellowships. The gender ratio in the votes was a more equal 45:55 (female to male) compared with 34:66 in recent fellowship winners, although this could be explained by Simpson's paradox. Voters were biased towards their own institution, with an additional 1.6 votes per ballot (inter-quartile range 0.8 to 2.2) above the expected number. Respondents raised many concerns about the idea of using democracy to fund research, including vote rigging, lobbying and it becoming a popularity contest.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is a preliminary study of using voting that does not investigate many of the concerns about how a voting system would work. We were able to show that voting would take less time than traditional peer review and would spread the workload over many more reviewers. Further studies of alternative funding systems are needed as well as a wide discussion with the research community about potential changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"2 ","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5803583/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Winning funding for health and medical research usually involves a lengthy application process. With success rates under 20%, much of the time spent by 80% of applicants could have been better used on actual research. An alternative funding system that could save time is using democracy to award the most deserving researchers based on votes from the research community. We aimed to pilot how such a system could work and examine some potential biases.

Methods: We used an online survey with a convenience sample of Australian researchers. Researchers were asked to name the 10 scientists currently working in Australia that they thought most deserved funding for future research. For comparison, we used recent winners from large national fellowship schemes that used traditional peer review.

Results: Voting took a median of 5 min (inter-quartile range 3 to 10 min). Extrapolating to a national voting scheme, we estimate 599 working days of voting time (95% CI 490 to 728), compared with 827 working days for the current peer review system for fellowships. The gender ratio in the votes was a more equal 45:55 (female to male) compared with 34:66 in recent fellowship winners, although this could be explained by Simpson's paradox. Voters were biased towards their own institution, with an additional 1.6 votes per ballot (inter-quartile range 0.8 to 2.2) above the expected number. Respondents raised many concerns about the idea of using democracy to fund research, including vote rigging, lobbying and it becoming a popularity contest.

Conclusions: This is a preliminary study of using voting that does not investigate many of the concerns about how a voting system would work. We were able to show that voting would take less time than traditional peer review and would spread the workload over many more reviewers. Further studies of alternative funding systems are needed as well as a wide discussion with the research community about potential changes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

利用民主发放研究经费:一项观察研究。
背景:赢得健康和医学研究资金通常需要漫长的申请过程。由于成功率低于 20%,80% 的申请者所花费的大量时间本可以更好地用于实际研究。另一种可以节省时间的资助系统是利用民主,根据研究界的投票来奖励最值得奖励的研究人员。我们的目的是试验这种制度如何运作,并研究一些潜在的偏见:方法:我们对澳大利亚研究人员进行了在线调查。研究人员被要求说出他们认为目前在澳大利亚工作的最值得资助未来研究的 10 位科学家。为了进行比较,我们使用了采用传统同行评审的大型国家奖学金计划的近期获奖者:投票时间中位数为 5 分钟(四分位数间距为 3-10 分钟)。根据全国性投票计划推断,我们估计投票时间为 599 个工作日(95% CI 为 490-728 天),而目前的研究金同行评审制度为 827 个工作日。投票中的男女比例为 45:55(女性对男性),而最近的研究金获得者中男女比例为 34:66,尽管这可以用辛普森悖论来解释。投票者偏向自己所在的机构,每张选票比预期多出 1.6 票(四分位数之间的范围为 0.8-2.2 票)。受访者对利用民主来资助研究的想法提出了许多担忧,包括操纵投票、游说和成为一场人气竞赛:这是一项关于利用投票的初步研究,并没有对投票系统如何运作的许多问题进行调查。我们能够证明,投票比传统的同行评审花费的时间更少,而且可以将工作量分摊给更多的评审人员。我们需要进一步研究其他资助系统,并与研究界广泛讨论潜在的变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信