Send us a link
The paper develops a credit allocation algorithm that captures the coauthors’ contribution to a publication as perceived by the scientific community.
A new computer simulation explores just how sensitive the process might be to bias and randomness. Its answer: very.
Study on the benefits of competition in providing incentives to scientists and the adverse effects of competition on resource sharing, research integrity and creativity.
The government peer-review committees that oversee grants are conservative by design. Given that their job is to put taxpayers’ money to good use, they are often reluctant to take big risks. The opposite is often true for crowdfunded projects.
A perverse focus on research cash and high-impact publications threatens careers and the aims of science itself, says Dorothy Bishop
The Wellcome Trust launches the new Collaborative Awards, enabling teams of researchers to apply together and bring new perspectives to the work they are doing.
How the US position as a global leader in biomedical research is being undermined.
Investigators with substantial, long-term, unrestricted research support may generally hold no more than one NIGMS research grant.
On transparency in the process of grant review.
Data show scores given to grant applications by external reviewers don't correlate with what actually gets funded.
“In the modern British university, it is not that funding is sought in order to carry out research, but that research projects are formulated in order to get funding.”
Ingredients to win a grant: start and finish early, seek feedback and file before deadline.
NIH to fund 85 awards to support highly innovative biomedical research.
71 per cent went to 31 universities because of 'narrowed' definitions of excellence
"The future of science (& humanity) isn't about funding, it's about supporting scientists to take risks once again."
Research funding will continue to be haphazard if an anecdotal approach continues to be taken. by Julia Lane
Fund people, not projects. The NIH is now encouraging its 27 institutes and centers to launch their own people awards.
An open research proposal calling for open research proposals and funding transparency.
America is a leader in funding for biomedical research, from government, industry, and the non-profit sector. And, for such a large country, the research community is remarkably spread out, with high-quality work being done in every region of the nation.
Highly fragmented and competitive system can undermine efforts to foster groundbreaking research.
Ben McNeil, founder of thinkable.org, thinks our science funding mechanism is fundamentally broken. Here's why, and what he thinks we should do about it.
The UK Government’s new prize for substantial innovation to address pressing societal problems should be welcomed, says Martin Rees.
Peer-review of projects dominates when it comes to decision on how to allocate funding for science. But is it really the best way?
How this money is invested could make a huge difference to our future, in the UK and to some extent beyond
Aside from the occasional cigar (once every five years or so), I'm one of those smug "never smoked" gits. You then might think that I'm all for plain packaging, not publishing tobacco industry-funded research, and completely against the " normalization" of smoking via the evidently evil medium of e-cigarettes.
There has been an upsurge in philanthropy for scientific research by America's billionaires. Still, in size and scope, philanthropy pales in comparison to public financing for science.
Follow our coverage of the 2015 budget request to Congress
1. Give all scientists an annual, unconditional fixed amount of funding to conduct their research. 2. All funded scientists are obliged to donate a fixed percentage of all of the funding that they previously received to other researchers: the funding circulates through the community, converging on researchers that are expected to make the best use of it.
