Peer review, program officers and science funding.

Increased competition for research funding has led to growth in proposal submissions and lower funding-success rates. An agent-based model of the funding cycle, accounting for variations in program officer and reviewer behaviors, for a range of funding rates, is used to assess the efficiency of diff...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Paul J Roebber, David M Schultz
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2011
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/81822547237b49a7a1f8e4599c4f716e
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:81822547237b49a7a1f8e4599c4f716e
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:81822547237b49a7a1f8e4599c4f716e2021-11-18T06:55:53ZPeer review, program officers and science funding.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0018680https://doaj.org/article/81822547237b49a7a1f8e4599c4f716e2011-04-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21533268/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Increased competition for research funding has led to growth in proposal submissions and lower funding-success rates. An agent-based model of the funding cycle, accounting for variations in program officer and reviewer behaviors, for a range of funding rates, is used to assess the efficiency of different proposal-submission strategies. Program officers who use more reviewers and require consensus can improve the chances of scientists submitting fewer proposals. Selfish or negligent reviewers reduce the effectiveness of submitting more proposals, but have less influence as available funding declines. Policies designed to decrease proposal submissions reduce reviewer workload, but can lower the quality of funded proposals. When available funding falls below 10-15% in this model, the most effective strategy for scientists to maintain funding is to submit many proposals.Paul J RoebberDavid M SchultzPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 6, Iss 4, p e18680 (2011)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Paul J Roebber David M Schultz Peer review, program officers and science funding.
description	Increased competition for research funding has led to growth in proposal submissions and lower funding-success rates. An agent-based model of the funding cycle, accounting for variations in program officer and reviewer behaviors, for a range of funding rates, is used to assess the efficiency of different proposal-submission strategies. Program officers who use more reviewers and require consensus can improve the chances of scientists submitting fewer proposals. Selfish or negligent reviewers reduce the effectiveness of submitting more proposals, but have less influence as available funding declines. Policies designed to decrease proposal submissions reduce reviewer workload, but can lower the quality of funded proposals. When available funding falls below 10-15% in this model, the most effective strategy for scientists to maintain funding is to submit many proposals.
format	article
author	Paul J Roebber David M Schultz
author_facet	Paul J Roebber David M Schultz
author_sort	Paul J Roebber
title	Peer review, program officers and science funding.
title_short	Peer review, program officers and science funding.
title_full	Peer review, program officers and science funding.
title_fullStr	Peer review, program officers and science funding.
title_full_unstemmed	Peer review, program officers and science funding.
title_sort	peer review, program officers and science funding.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2011
url	https://doaj.org/article/81822547237b49a7a1f8e4599c4f716e
work_keys_str_mv	AT pauljroebber peerreviewprogramofficersandsciencefunding AT davidmschultz peerreviewprogramofficersandsciencefunding
_version_	1718424176063152128

Peer review, program officers and science funding.

Ejemplares similares