Increasingly, science diaspora networks are managed by formal organizations such as embassies or non-profit organizations. Researchers have studied these networks to understand how they influence international collaborations and science diplomacy, and to determine which network activities foster those outcomes and which do not. In this perspective, we suggest that many of these network organizations confront an underappreciated conundrum for managing resources: organizations with few resources must learn how to obtain more resources despite lacking means to do so. To substantiate our suggestion, we do the following. We review exploratory results from a study of network organizations that indicate that these organizations generally lack resources, learn too little from each other, and struggle to overcome the resource conundrum. We also show that this conundrum is expected from organizational theory based on bounded rationality. To help organizations confront the issue, we do the following. First we provide a new database of operating science diaspora networks. We encourage managers of network organizations to use it as a resource to identify peers with whom to regularly exchange knowledge about securing resources. We also suggest that other scientific organizations should infuse network organizations with fresh resources. Ultimately, we urge all relevant stakeholders to recognize that the conundrum results not from the shortcomings of individual managers, but rather is a legitimate organizational phenomena that must be addressed by organizational design.

No abstract

Previous studies of the use of peer review for the allocation of competitive funding agencies have concentrated on questions of efficiency and how to make the ‘best’ decision, by ensuring that successful applicants are also the more productive or visible in the long term. This paper examines the function of peer review by examining how it can be used as a participatory research governance tool by focusing on the function feedback plays in assisting in the development of ECR applicants. Using a combination of survey, interviews and linguistic-based coding of reviewer reports, this study explores how reviewer reports provided to unsuccessful applicants as an artefact of the peer-review decision making process, can be considered as a method of feedback. Specifically, it examines which components of this feedback underpinned their decisions to re-submit their grant applications following first-failure; change their research topics or withdraw from academia entirely. Peer review feedback, we argue, sends signals to applicants to encourage them to persist (continue) or switch (not continue) even when the initial application has failed. The results lead to identification of standards of feedback for funding agencies and peer-reviewers to promote when providing reviewer feedback to applicants as part of their peer review process. The results also highlight a function of peer review overlooked by current research which is not concentrated solely on the development of an outcome, to one that can be used effectively to support the development of individuals and their future research plans.

Purpose The analysis of existing institutional research proposal databases can provide novel insights into science funding parity. The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between race/ethnicity and extramural research proposal and award rates across a medical school faculty and to determine whether there was evidence that researchers changed their submission strategies because of differential inequities across submission categories. Method The authors performed an analysis of 14,263 biomedical research proposals with proposed start dates between 2010–2022 from the University of Michigan Medical School, measuring the proposal submission and award rates for each racial/ethnic group across 4 possible submission categories (R01 & Equivalent programs, other federal, industry, and non-profit). Results Researchers from each self-identified racial/ethnic group (Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino) pursued a different proposal submission strategy than the majority group (White). The authors found that Black/African American researchers experienced negative award rate differentials across all submission categories, which resulted in the lowest R01 & Equivalent and Other Federal submission rates of any racial/ethnic group and the highest submission rate to non-profit sources. The authors did not find support for the hypothesis that researchers changed submission strategies in response to award rate inequalities across submission categories. Conclusions Biomedical researchers from different racial/ethnic groups follow markedly different proposal submission strategies within the University of Michigan Medical School. There is also a clear relationship between race/ethnicity and rates of proposal award. Black/African American and Asian researchers appear disadvantaged across all submission categories relative to White researchers. This study can be easily replicated by other academic research institutions, revealing opportunities for positive intervention.

No abstract