Flipping the grant application review process.

Ivo D Dinov
Author Information
  1. Ivo D Dinov: Statistics Online Computational Resource, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. ORCID

Abstract

The return on research investment resulting from new breakthrough scientific discoveries may be decreasing over time due to the law of diminishing returns, the relative decrease of research funding in terms of purchasing power parity, and various activities gaming the system. By altering the grant-review process, the scientific community may directly address the third problem. There is evidence that peer reviews of research proposals may lack reliability and may produce invalid or inconsistent ratings. In addition, extreme focus on threatens to uproot a cornerstone principle that scientific-value should be the key driver in funding decision-making. This opinion provides (1) a justification of the need to consider alternative strategies to boost the impact of public investment in innovative scientific discovery, (2) proposes a framework for flipping the traditional front-loaded peer-review approach to allocation of research funding, into a new back-loaded assessment of scholarly return on investment, and (3) provokes the scientific community to accelerate the debate on alternative funding mechanisms, as the stakes of inaction may be very high.

Keywords

References

  1. Br Dent J. 2013 Apr;214(7):335-7 [PMID: 23579129]
  2. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec 23;12:478 [PMID: 23259467]
  3. J Neurobiol. 1983 Mar;14(2):95-112 [PMID: 6842193]
  4. Scientometrics. 2017;111(2):1053-1070 [PMID: 28490825]
  5. Lancet. 1998 Jul 25;352(9124):301-5 [PMID: 9690424]
  6. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017 Sep 15;2:16 [PMID: 29451532]
  7. Nature. 2016 Oct 26;538(7626):446-449 [PMID: 27786221]
  8. Nature. 2014 Apr 24;508(7497):555-6 [PMID: 24822279]
  9. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011 Jun 24;9:26 [PMID: 21702930]
  10. Am Psychol. 2008 Apr;63(3):160-8 [PMID: 18377106]
  11. PLoS Med. 2014 Oct 21;11(10):e1001747 [PMID: 25334033]
  12. PLoS One. 2018 May 11;13(5):e0196914 [PMID: 29750807]
  13. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000003 [PMID: 17443627]
  14. F1000Res. 2017 Aug 7;6:1335 [PMID: 29707193]

Grants

  1. P30 AG053760/NIA NIH HHS
  2. U54 EB020406/NIBIB NIH HHS
  3. P20 NR015331/NINR NIH HHS
  4. P30 DK089503/NIDDK NIH HHS
  5. UL1 TR002240/NCATS NIH HHS
  6. P50 NS091856/NINDS NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0researchmayfundingscientificinvestmentreviewreturnnewprocesscommunitypeeralternativeimpactgrantresultingbreakthroughdiscoveriesdecreasingtimeduelawdiminishingreturnsrelativedecreasetermspurchasingpowerparityvariousactivitiesgamingsystemalteringgrant-reviewdirectlyaddressthirdproblemevidencereviewsproposalslackreliabilityproduceinvalidinconsistentratingsadditionextremefocusthreatensuprootcornerstoneprinciplescientific-valuekeydriverdecision-makingopinionprovides1justificationneedconsiderstrategiesboostpublicinnovativediscovery2proposesframeworkflippingtraditionalfront-loadedpeer-reviewapproachallocationback-loadedassessmentscholarly3provokesacceleratedebatemechanismsstakesinactionhighFlippingapplicationAcademicevaluationeducationindex

Similar Articles

Cited By