The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding

From AcaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation: Daniel Mietchen (2014/12/31) The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding. PLOS Biology (RSS)
DOI (original publisher): 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027
Semantic Scholar (metadata): 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027
Sci-Hub (fulltext): 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding
Wikidata (metadata): Q20895790
Download: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027
Tagged:

Summary

Reply to Gurwitz, et al report on transparency at major funders of biomedical research, who refer to an incremental approach to adding transparency -- release of components that should do no harm to evaluation, after funding decisions have been made -- and a radical approach -- opening up the review process as a whole.

Notes most comprehensive meta-analysis of grant peer review to date finds there is little empirical evidence of the effects of grant giving peer review and suggests experimental studies of innovations in peer review.

Argues impacts from radical approach could be measured sooner and have a larger magnitude than incremental approach. Opening proposals in drafting phase would have greatest impact in helping:

  • find potential collaborators
  • gauging likelihood of funding
  • making available version history
  • facilitating annotation and commenting

Participatory budgeting, large-scale infrastructure such as the LHC, and crowdfunding for research are examples of funding proposals made public before funding.

Argues once proposals were open, other changes towards openness would follow, eg:

  • making peer reviews public
  • help with establishing, maintaining, and teaching quality standards
  • allow rejected proposals to be built upon
  • data found in proposals make its way into public databases
  • research be performed more openly given basic ideas public
  • researches might be more evaluated on "what they did" rather than "where they published"
  • less time spent on proposal writing and more on research
  • data mining could link assertions in proposals to published literature
  • science communicators could embed themselves in research before it has even begun
  • there could be enhanced collaboration among researchers and their tools, solving problems faster

Conclusion notes that no funders publish assessment summaries, proposals or reviews, or information about pending or rejected proposals. Calls for addressing all of these, with one path to start with publishing all for past successful proposals. Also notes two additional potential changes:

  • developing countries could leapfrog by adopting radical approach from start
  • radical approach could help overcome inequalities in terms of age and other aspects of diversity

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

The author is one of the founding editors of a new (2015) journal intended to publish outputs of the full research cycle, including proposals, see http://riojournal.com/