CZ:Ref:DOI:10.1080/08989620802689821: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Chris Day (Daniel, something like this? Probably nned to work on the parameters. indentation and title for one.) |
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (typo) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| last2 = Poulin | first2 = B.J. | | last2 = Poulin | first2 = B.J. | ||
}} | }} | ||
:Suggests, based on a study of the costs of [[peer review]] at the [http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada], that innovation could be stimulated by avoiding peer review for grants at the initial | :Suggests, based on a study of the costs of [[peer review]] at the [http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada], that innovation could be stimulated by avoiding peer review for grants at the initial stages of research. | ||
{ | {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; padding: 0px;" | ||
|- | |||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Received lots of discussion in the blogosphere | |||
|- | |||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 4px; background-color: fafafa;" | | |||
:*[http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/04/eliminate_peer-review_of_basel.php http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/04/eliminate_peer-review_of_basel.php] | :*[http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/04/eliminate_peer-review_of_basel.php http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/04/eliminate_peer-review_of_basel.php] | ||
:*[http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/04/why_eliminate_the_peer-review.php http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/04/why_eliminate_the_peer-review.php] | :*[http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/04/why_eliminate_the_peer-review.php http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/04/why_eliminate_the_peer-review.php] | ||
| Line 23: | Line 28: | ||
:*[http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/applying-to-nserc-everyone-gets-grant.html http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/applying-to-nserc-everyone-gets-grant.html] | :*[http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/applying-to-nserc-everyone-gets-grant.html http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/applying-to-nserc-everyone-gets-grant.html] | ||
:*[http://ways.org/en/blogs/2009/apr/09/research_grant_systems_that_encourage_innovation http://ways.org/en/blogs/2009/apr/09/research_grant_systems_that_encourage_innovation] | :*[http://ways.org/en/blogs/2009/apr/09/research_grant_systems_that_encourage_innovation http://ways.org/en/blogs/2009/apr/09/research_grant_systems_that_encourage_innovation] | ||
:*[http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/15/workfare-for-scientists-cheaper-and-more-productive/ http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/15/workfare-for-scientists-cheaper-and-more-productive/]| | :*[http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/15/workfare-for-scientists-cheaper-and-more-productive/ http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/15/workfare-for-scientists-cheaper-and-more-productive/] | ||
|} | |||
Latest revision as of 20:27, 7 August 2010
Gordon, R. & B.J. Poulin (2009), "Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant", Accountability in Research 16 (1): 13–40, DOI:10.1080/08989620802689821 [e]
- Suggests, based on a study of the costs of peer review at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, that innovation could be stimulated by avoiding peer review for grants at the initial stages of research.