SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Alternatives to Peer Review in Research Project Funding
0 references·7 citing·28 second hop
Alternatives to Peer Review in Research Project Funding (2013)Alternatives to Peer Review in Research P…Research funding randomly allocated? A survey of scientists’ views on peer review and lottery (2021)Research funding randomly all…Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice (2020)Decision-making approaches us…Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study (2017)Using democracy to award rese…Uncertainty and Individual Discretion in Allocating Research Funds (2017)Uncertainty and Individual Di…The future of societal impact assessment using peer review: pre-evaluation training, consensus building and inter-reviewer reliability (2017)The future of societal impact…Research Portfolios in Science Policy: Moving from Financial Returns to Societal Benefits (2016)Research Portfolios in Scienc…Analysis of Emerging Reputation and Funding Mechanisms in the Context of Open Science 2.0 (2015)Analysis of Emerging Reputati…The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1974)The New production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies (1995)The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research (1968)The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. (1968)Constructing grounded theory (2014)Do peers share the same criteria for assessing grant applications? (2021)Does reviewing experience reduce disagreement in proposals evaluation? Insights from Marie Skłodowska-Curie and COST Actions (2021)Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model (2022)Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping (2014)Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention (1962)Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact (2013)Using thematic analysis in psychology (2006)Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups (2007)Bias in peer review (2012)PORTFOLIO SELECTION* (1952)The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review (2001)A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks (2010)Journal portfolio analysis for countries, cities, and organizations: Maps and comparisons (2015)How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals (2024)The Republic of science (1962)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)How Professors Think (2009)Determining factors of participation and success rates in research funding competitions: Case study (2022)Partial lottery can make grant allocation more fair, more efficient, and more diverse (2022)Distrust in grant peer review—reasons and remedies (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2017The future of societal impact assessment using peer review: pre-evaluation training, consensus building and inter-reviewer reliability30 cited
  • 2021Research funding randomly allocated? A survey of scientists’ views on peer review and lottery23 cited
  • 2016Research Portfolios in Science Policy: Moving from Financial Returns to Societal Benefits16 cited
  • 2020Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice12 cited
  • 2017Uncertainty and Individual Discretion in Allocating Research Funds12 cited
  • 2017Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study10 cited
  • 2015Analysis of Emerging Reputation and Funding Mechanisms in the Context of Open Science 2.010 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work