Researchers acting to maximise their fitness should spend most of their effort seeking novel results and conduct small studies that have only 10%–40% statistical power. As a result, half of the studies they publish will report erroneous conclusions. Current incentive structures are in conflict with maximising the scientific value of research; we suggest ways that the scientific ecosystem could be improved.

In an era where research bureaucracy is the biggest burden bestowed upon scientists, some are seeking practical solutions.

Federally funded research and development (R&D) is a hallmark of the U.S. economy but, it's under siege. To maximize and make apparent the economic returns from R&D, the next administration should seek to improve the local economic impact of federal R&D.

Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition.

On the importance of identifying variables explaining the underlying differences in individual reviewer decision-making.

Current trends indicate that research is starting to become a preserve of the privileged.

This paper presents a novel model of science funding that exploits the wisdom of the scientific crowd. Each researcher receives an equal, unconditional part of all available science funding on a yearly basis, but is required to individually donate to other scientists a given fraction of all they receive. Science funding thus moves from one scientist to the next in such a way that scientists who receive many donations must also redistribute the most. As the funding circulates through the scientific community it is mathematically expected to converge on a funding distribution favored by the entire scientific community. This is achieved without any proposal submissions or reviews.