Peer Review in Funding-by-Lottery: A Systematic Overview and Expansion
Saved in:
| Title: | Peer Review in Funding-by-Lottery: A Systematic Overview and Expansion |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Shaw, Jamie |
| Source: | Research Evaluation. Jan 2023 32(1):86-100. |
| Availability: | Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44-1865-353907; Fax: +44-1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 15 |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Peer Evaluation, Program Evaluation, Financial Support, Scientific Research, Taxonomy, Holistic Approach, Trust (Psychology), Social Responsibility |
| DOI: | 10.1093/reseval/rvac022 |
| ISSN: | 0958-2029 1471-5449 |
| Abstract: | Despite the surging interest in introducing lottery mechanisms into decision-making procedures for science funding bodies, the discourse on funding-by-lottery remains underdeveloped and, at times, misleading. Funding-by-lottery is sometimes presented as if it were a single mechanism when, in reality, there are many funding-by-lottery mechanisms with important distinguishing features. Moreover, funding-by-lottery is sometimes portrayed as an alternative to traditional methods of peer review when peer review is still used within funding-by-lottery approaches. This obscures a proper analysis of the (hypothetical and actual) variants of funding-by-lottery and important differences amongst them. The goal of this article is to provide a preliminary taxonomy of funding-by-lottery variants and evaluate how the existing evidence on peer review might lend differentiated support for variants of funding-by-lottery. Moreover, I point to gaps in the literature on peer review that must be addressed in future research. I conclude by building off of the work of Avin in moving toward a more holistic evaluation of funding-by-lottery. Specifically, I consider implications funding-by-lottery variants may have regarding trust and social responsibility. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2023 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1382459 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Despite the surging interest in introducing lottery mechanisms into decision-making procedures for science funding bodies, the discourse on funding-by-lottery remains underdeveloped and, at times, misleading. Funding-by-lottery is sometimes presented as if it were a single mechanism when, in reality, there are many funding-by-lottery mechanisms with important distinguishing features. Moreover, funding-by-lottery is sometimes portrayed as an alternative to traditional methods of peer review when peer review is still used within funding-by-lottery approaches. This obscures a proper analysis of the (hypothetical and actual) variants of funding-by-lottery and important differences amongst them. The goal of this article is to provide a preliminary taxonomy of funding-by-lottery variants and evaluate how the existing evidence on peer review might lend differentiated support for variants of funding-by-lottery. Moreover, I point to gaps in the literature on peer review that must be addressed in future research. I conclude by building off of the work of Avin in moving toward a more holistic evaluation of funding-by-lottery. Specifically, I consider implications funding-by-lottery variants may have regarding trust and social responsibility. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0958-2029 1471-5449 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/reseval/rvac022 |
