ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2020
The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line.Nature communications · 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
- Article
- A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- The Luck of the Draw: Wellcome's Institutional Fund for Research Culture.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- A normative theory of luck.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects.Small business economics · 2022Article
- Deep forecasting of translational impact in medical research.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 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
- Equity and Game-Theory Strategies to Promote Gender Diversity and Inclusion in an Academic Health Science Centre.CJC open · 2021Article
- Article
- Swiss funder draws lots to make grant decisions.Nature · 2021Article
- Article
- Administrative Discretion in Scientific Funding: Evidence from a Prestigious Postdoctoral Training Program.Research policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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% (
conclusionsThe Health Research Council's experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.
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.