使用摇号分配研究经费的可接受性:对申请人的调查。

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2020-02-03 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z
Mengyao Liu, Vernon Choy, Philip Clarke, Adrian Barnett, Tony Blakely, Lucy Pomeroy
{"title":"使用摇号分配研究经费的可接受性:对申请人的调查。","authors":"Mengyao Liu,&nbsp;Vernon Choy,&nbsp;Philip Clarke,&nbsp;Adrian Barnett,&nbsp;Tony Blakely,&nbsp;Lucy Pomeroy","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (<i>n</i> = 79) in favour and 25% (<i>n</i> = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (<i>n</i> = 50) in favour and 37% (<i>n</i> = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Health Research Council's experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"5 ","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z","citationCount":"39","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants.\",\"authors\":\"Mengyao Liu,&nbsp;Vernon Choy,&nbsp;Philip Clarke,&nbsp;Adrian Barnett,&nbsp;Tony Blakely,&nbsp;Lucy Pomeroy\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (<i>n</i> = 79) in favour and 25% (<i>n</i> = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (<i>n</i> = 50) in favour and 37% (<i>n</i> = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Health Research Council's experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z\",\"citationCount\":\"39\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39

摘要

背景:新西兰健康研究理事会是第一个主要的政府资助机构,使用摇号来为其探索者资助计划分配研究经费。这是一种有争议的方法,因为尽管文献记载了同行评议的问题,但许多研究人员认为,资金应该只通过同行评议来分配,而同行评议在世界各地的资助机构中几乎无处不在。鉴于其他资助计划的稀缺性,人们有兴趣听取第一批经历过摇号的研究人员的意见。此外,新西兰健康研究委员会希望听取申请人关于随机化过程的可接受性和申请人的匿名性。方法:对2013 - 2019年卫生研究理事会申请人员进行调查。该调查询问了使用摇号的可接受性,以及摇号是否意味着研究人员采用了不同的应用方法。结果:总体回复率为39%(325个邀请中的126个),2013年至2018年的申请者中有30%(251个申请者中有76个),2019年的申请者中有68%(74个申请者中有50个)不知道资助结果。人们一致认为,随机化是分配探索者基金的一种可接受的方法,63% (n = 79)的人赞成,25% (n = 32)的人反对。对随机分配资金给其他赠款类型的支持较少,只有40% (n = 50)赞成,37% (n = 46)反对。在那些获得资助的人中,对彩票的支持率更高。许多受访者表示,当不符合条件的申请被排除在外,而优秀的申请得到资助时,他们支持摇号,这样剩下的申请就真正平等了。大多数申请人报告说,摇号并没有改变他们准备申请的时间。结论:健康研究委员会通过探索者资助计划的经验支持进一步采用改良的彩票。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants.

Background: The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants.

Methods: This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application.

Results: The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (n = 79) in favour and 25% (n = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (n = 50) in favour and 37% (n = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application.

Conclusions: The Health Research Council's experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting. Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1