IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1002027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Mietchen

Abstract

This Perspective extends an ongoing debate on transparency in research funding, advocating the exploration of more radical approaches.Central to research funding are grant proposals that researchers send in to potential funders for review, in the hope of approval. A survey of policies at major research funders found that there is room for more transparency in the process of grant review, which would strengthen the case for the efficiency of public spending on research. On that basis, debate was invited on which transparency measures should be implemented and how, with some concrete suggestions at hand. The present article adds to this discussion by providing further context from the literature, along with considerations on the effect size of the proposed measures. The article then explores the option of opening to the public key components of the process, makes the case for pilot projects in this area, and sketches out the potential that such measures might have to transform the research landscape in those areas in which they are implemented.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Mietchen, 2014. "The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-3, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002027
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy Gowers & Michael Nielsen, 2009. "Massively collaborative mathematics," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7266), pages 879-881, October.
    2. Pierre Azoulay, 2012. "Turn the scientific method on ourselves," Nature, Nature, vol. 484(7392), pages 31-32, April.
    3. David Gurwitz & Elena Milanesi & Thomas Koenig, 2014. "Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-6, December.
    4. Philip E Bourne & Leo M Chalupa, 2006. "Ten Simple Rules for Getting Grants," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(2), pages 1-2, February.
    5. John P. A. Ioannidis, 2011. "Fund people not projects," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7366), pages 529-531, September.
    6. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2014. "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1414-1433, October.
    7. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    8. Ajay Agrawal & Avi Goldfarb, 2008. "Restructuring Research: Communication Costs and the Democratization of University Innovation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1578-1590, September.
    9. Daniel Mietchen, 2011. "Peer reviews: make them public," Nature, Nature, vol. 473(7348), pages 452-452, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Krist Vaesen & Joel Katzav, 2017. "How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carolin Haeussler & Henry Sauermann, 2016. "The Division of Labor in Teams: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Collaborations in Science," NBER Working Papers 22241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Abhishek Nagaraj, 2018. "Does Copyright Affect Reuse? Evidence from Google Books and Wikipedia," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3091-3107, July.
    3. Perkmann, Markus & Schildt, Henri, 2015. "Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1133-1143.
    4. Miguel Navascués & Costantino Budroni, 2019. "Theoretical research without projects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-35, March.
    5. David Gurwitz & Elena Milanesi & Thomas Koenig, 2014. "Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-6, December.
    6. Boudreau, Kevin J. & Lakhani, Karim R., 2015. "“Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 4-19.
    7. Sascha Friesike & Bastian Widenmayer & Oliver Gassmann & Thomas Schildhauer, 2015. "Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 581-601, August.
    8. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    9. Julian Koch & Simon Stisen, 2017. "Citizen science: A new perspective to advance spatial pattern evaluation in hydrology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, May.
    10. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    11. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    12. Orazbayev, Sultan, 2017. "International knowledge flows and the administrative barriers to mobility," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1655-1665.
    13. Ajay Agrawal & Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2021. "Enabling Entrepreneurial Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5510-5524, September.
    14. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    15. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    16. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2014. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 655, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    17. Héloïse Berkowitz, 2020. "Participatory Governance for the Development of the Blue Bioeconomy in the Mediterranean Region," Working Papers hal-02555685, HAL.
    18. Mohammad Bagher Arayesh & Mostafa Rezaeirad & Mohammad Aidi & Tohfeh Ghobadi Lamuki, 2022. "Modeling the platform-based banking in commercial banks of Iran," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(4), pages 351-367, December.
    19. Oliver Schilke & Sheen S. Levine & Olenka Kacperczyk & Lynne G. Zucker, 2019. "Call for Papers-Special Issue on Experiments in Organizational Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 232-234, February.
    20. Wernsdorf, Kathrin & Nagler, Markus & Watzinger, Martin, 2022. "ICT, collaboration, and innovation: Evidence from BITNET," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pbio00:1002027. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    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.