Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41198695›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line.

Finn Luebber, Sören Krach, Frieder M Paulus, Lena Rademacher, Rima-Maria Rahal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Finn LuebberDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0893-2120
Sören KrachDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. soeren.krach@uni-luebeck.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4834-8378
Frieder M PaulusDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8113-7265
Lena RademacherDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9518-4823
Rima-Maria RahalBehavioral Law & Economics, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1404-0471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research funding is a key determinant of scientific progress. However, current allocation procedures for third-party funding are criticized due to high costs and biases in the selection. Here, we present data from a large German funding organization on an implementation of a lottery-first approach followed by peer review to allocate funding. We examine the changes in submissions and funded projects of female applicants after implementation, estimate the costs of the overall allocation process, and report on the attitudes and satisfaction of researchers and reviewers. The data show an increase of 10% in submissions and a 23% increase in funded projects from female applicants with the lottery-first approach compared to a previously used procedure. Additionally, the lottery-first approach was estimated to have 68% lower economic costs compared to a conventional single-stage peer review approach. Satisfaction with this funding approach was high and around half of applicants preferred an initial lottery followed by peer review over a conventional approach. Thus, the lottery-first approach is a promising addition to allocation procedures.

Indexed as

Peer Review, ResearchResearch PersonnelResearch Support as TopicFemaleGermanyHumans

Identifiers

PMID41198695
PMCPMC12592401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.