IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i4p580-582..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partial lottery can make grant allocation more fair, more efficient, and more diverse
[Mavericks and lotteries]

Author

Listed:
  • Serge P J M Horbach
  • Joeri K Tijdink
  • Lex M Bouter

Abstract

We call on research funding organisations to experiment with different models for integrating partial randomisation into their grant allocation processes as well as to assess the feasibility, the potential implications, and the perceptions of such models. Traditional models of grant allocation have usually been based on peer review to rank applications and allocate grants. These models have been shown to suffer from various shortcomings. In particular, we believe that partial randomisation holds the potential of being more fair, more efficient, and more diverse. In addition, it may lead to more responsible research practices. We outline a proposal for such a grant allocation process and sketch various arguments in favour of it. We also address potential counterarguments and conclude that partial randomisation in grant allocation holds the potential to lead to many benefits and therefore warrants further experimentation and implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Serge P J M Horbach & Joeri K Tijdink & Lex M Bouter, 2022. "Partial lottery can make grant allocation more fair, more efficient, and more diverse [Mavericks and lotteries]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 580-582.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:4:p:580-582.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eva Barlösius & Laura Paruschke & Axel Philipps, 2024. "Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 623-634.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:4:p:580-582.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.