ArticleEMBO reports2019
The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding: Funders need to experiment with versions of peer review and decision-making.
Article in EMBO reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applicants as reviewers: a mixed methods evaluation of the risks, benefits, and potential of distributed peer review for grant funding allocations.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Scientific review of protocols to enhance informativeness of global health clinical trials.Trials · 2025Article
- Threats to grant peer review: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Negotiating science funding: The interplay of merit, bias, and administrative discretion in grant allocation in Kazakhstan.PloS one · 2025Article
- A maturity model for the scientific review of clinical trial designs and their informativeness.Trials · 2024Article
- Promoting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice in Grantmaking for Health Care Research: A Pragmatic Review and Framework.Health equity · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Bias Amplification in Gender, Gender Identity, and Geographical Affiliation.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2022Article
- Strategies for inclusive grantmaking.Nature medicine · 2022Article
- What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis.Research integrity and peer review · 2022Article
- 'Science by consensus' impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Getting funded in a highly fluctuating environment: Shifting from excellence to luck and timing.PloS one · 2022Article
- Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Pervasive structural racism in environmental epidemiology.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2021Article
- Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018.eLife · 2021Article
- Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices.F1000Research · 2021Article
- The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding: Funders need to experiment with versions of peer review and decision-making.EMBO reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review to allocate funding for researchers and projects has faced difficulties lately and come under criticism. Various alternatives and improvements are being tested to address these problems.
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.