ArticlemBio2016
Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery.
Article in mBio, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 40 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Provenance and Funding of Extremely Cited Biomedical Articles Published Between 2003 and 2024.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Bayesian Rank-Clustering.Psychometrika · 2025Article
- Threats to grant peer review: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Article
- Arturo Casadevall Speaks on Curiosity, Resilience, and Scientific Integrity.Pathogens & immunity · 2025Article
- Arrhythmia Research at a Tipping Point: The Need for Disruptive Science and Technology.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2024Article
- Parsing 20 Years of Public Data by AI Maps Trends in Proteomics and Forecasts Technology.Journal of proteome research · 2024Review
- Impact of medical technologies may be predicted using constructed graph bibliometrics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Can't We Do Better? A cost-benefit analysis of proposal writing in a competitive funding environment.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Federal Funding and Citation Metrics of US Biomedical Researchers, 1996 to 2022.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects.Small business economics · 2022Article
- Why many funding schemes harm rather than support research.Nature human behaviour · 2022Article
- 'Science by consensus' impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Learning on knowledge graph dynamics provides an early warning of impactful research.Nature biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The time-honored mechanism of allocating funds based on ranking of proposals by scientific peer review is no longer effective, because review panels cannot accurately stratify proposals to identify the most meritorious ones. Bias has a major influence on funding decisions, and the impact of reviewer bias is magnified by low funding paylines. Despite more than a decade of funding crisis, there has been no fundamental reform in the mechanism for funding research. This essay explores the idea of awarding research funds on the basis of a modified lottery in which peer review is used to identify the most meritorious proposals, from which funded applications are selected by lottery. We suggest that a modified lottery for research fund allocation would have many advantages over the current system, including reducing bias and improving grantee diversity with regard to seniority, race, and gender.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.