The modified lottery: Formalizing the intrinsic randomness of research funding

Global health research funding applications: brain drain under another name?

“…Although there are flaws found with all ways of selecting studies for funding, 4,[6][7][8] we believe that the current process of applying for research funding in the UK is particularly detrimental for research capacity building in LMICs. Indeed, the process could be said to contribute to so-called brain drain as we drain away the scant and valuable time of the few experts in LMICs for the unlikely chance of securing research funding.…”

Questionable research practices in competitive grant funding: A survey

“…Since competition seems to be an important driver of QRPs [ 2 ], reducing competition may also help to decrease these QRPs. For instance, funding agencies can contribute to a less competitive research environment by striving for a more equal distribution of the available funding [ 12 , 43 ]. Currently, some funding agencies already have explicit regulations regarding the QRPs that our survey queried.…”

“…The majority of existing empirical research on questionable research practices addresses issues relating to research design, data collection and publication practices. However, in the light of funders' influential role in shaping the research ecosystem and taking into account the time and effort invested in distributing funding through competitive calls [10][11][12][13], it is surprising how little attention has been devoted to research integrity in the context of peer reviewed project funding. Recently, but based mostly on anecdotal evidence, it has been suggested that the very nature of the system of peer reviewed project funding may not only incentivize, but actually force researchers to resort to unacceptable practices [14], resulting in the violation of many, if not all, values that are commonly regarded as central to responsible research conduct-accountability, honesty, responsibility, impartiality, and fairness.…”

Luck and the ‘situations’ of research

“…If luck is central to success, lifting up one or two out of many qualified candidates who have also 'worked hard' and had good support networks, what does that mean for systems of reward and responsibility in science? While this question speaks to contemporary debates about the use of randomization in reward systems, for instance in research funding (De Peuter & Conix, 2022;Reinhart & Schendzielorz, 2020), acknowledging luck also suggests both the importance of humility and the continuing necessity of rejecting hero narratives of excellence and exceptionalism. Indeed, as Loveday suggests, perhaps talking (more) of luck has the potential to intervene in current evaluative regimes.…”