ArticleF1000Research2022
Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities.
Article in F1000Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An epistemology for democratic citizen science.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Education-based grant programmes for bottom-up distance learning and project catalysis: antimicrobial resistance in Sub-Saharan Africa.Access microbiology · 2023Article
- Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities.F1000Research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resource allocation is essential to selection and implementation of innovative projects in science and technology. Current "winner-take-all" models for grant applications require significant researcher time in writing extensive project proposals, and rely on the availability of a few time-saturated volunteer experts. Such processes usually carry over several months, resulting in high effective costs compared to expected benefits. We devised an agile "community review" system to allocate micro-grants for the fast prototyping of innovative solutions. Here we describe and evaluate the implementation of this community review across 147 projects from the "Just One Giant Lab's OpenCOVID19 initiative" and "Helpful Engineering" open research communities. The community review process uses granular review forms and requires the participation of grant applicants in the review process. Within a year, we organised 7 rounds of review, resulting in 614 reviews from 201 reviewers, and the attribution of 48 micro-grants of up to 4,000 euros. The system is fast, with a median process duration of 10 days, scalable, with a median of 4 reviewers per project independent of the total number of projects, and fair, with project rankings highly preserved after the synthetic removal of reviewers. Regarding potential bias introduced by involving applicants in the process, we find that review scores from both applicants and non-applicants have a similar correlation of r=0.28 with other reviews within a project, matching traditional approaches. Finally, we find that the ability of projects to apply to several rounds allows to foster the further implementation of successful early prototypes, as well as provide a pathway to constructively improve an initially failing proposal in an agile manner. Overall, this study quantitatively highlights the benefits of a frugal, community review system acting as a due diligence for rapid and agile resource allocation in open research and innovation programs, with implications for decentralised communities.
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.