Literature DB >> 19247851

Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant.

Richard Gordon1, Bryan J Poulin.   

Abstract

Using Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Canada (NSERC) statistics, we show that the $40,000 (Canadian) cost of preparation for a grant application and rejection by peer review in 2007 exceeded that of giving every qualified investigator a direct baseline discovery grant of $30,000 (average grant). This means the Canadian Federal Government could institute direct grants for 100% of qualified applicants for the same money. We anticipate that the net result would be more and better research since more research would be conducted at the critical idea or discovery stage. Control of quality is assured through university hiring, promotion and tenure proceedings, journal reviews of submitted work, and the patent process, whose collective scrutiny far exceeds that of grant peer review. The greater efficiency in use of grant funds and increased innovation with baseline funding would provide a means of achieving the goals of the recent Canadian Value for Money and Accountability Review. We suggest that developing countries could leapfrog ahead by adopting from the start science grant systems that encourage innovation.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19247851     DOI: 10.1080/08989620802689821

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Account Res        ISSN: 0898-9621            Impact factor:   2.622


  11 in total

1.  Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.

Authors:  Hendy Abdoul; Christophe Perrey; Philippe Amiel; Florence Tubach; Serge Gottot; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski; Corinne Alberti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.

Authors:  Danielle L Herbert; Nicholas Graves; Philip Clarke; Adrian G Barnett
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  The transformative nature of transparency in research funding.

Authors:  Daniel Mietchen
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 8.029

4.  A basic scientist's reflections on research funding.

Authors:  Katalin Szaszi
Journal:  Can J Kidney Health Dis       Date:  2015-12-01

Review 5.  What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

Authors:  Susan Guthrie; Ioana Ghiga; Steven Wooding
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-08-07

6.  The UK Research Excellence Framework and the Matthew effect: Insights from machine learning.

Authors:  Lloyd D Balbuena
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Assessing health research grant applications: A retrospective comparative review of a one-stage versus a two-stage application assessment process.

Authors:  Ben Morgan; Ly-Mee Yu; Tom Solomon; Sue Ziebland
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding.

Authors:  Jean-Michel Fortin; David J Currie
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?

Authors:  Krist Vaesen; Joel Katzav
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study.

Authors:  Adrian G Barnett; Philip Clarke; Cedryck Vaquette; Nicholas Graves
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2017-09-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.