CZ:Ref:DOI:10.1080/08989620802689821: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen
(started)
 
imported>Daniel Mietchen
m (typo)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:
  | last2 =  Poulin | first2 =  B.J.
  | last2 =  Poulin | first2 =  B.J.
}}
}}
:Received lots of discussion in the blogosphere.
: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/why_eliminate_the_peer-review.php http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/04/why_eliminate_the_peer-review.php]
:*[http://friendfeed.com/e/9a031a63-9620-410a-95ad-0bccd31e944d/Eliminate-peer-review-of-baseline-grants/ http://friendfeed.com/e/9a031a63-9620-410a-95ad-0bccd31e944d/Eliminate-peer-review-of-baseline-grants/]
:*[http://friendfeed.com/e/b7c98571-f0e6-40cb-8769-b18af1bca476/Follow-up-on-NSERC-study-possibility-to-put-the/ http://friendfeed.com/e/b7c98571-f0e6-40cb-8769-b18af1bca476/Follow-up-on-NSERC-study-possibility-to-put-the/]
:*[http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2009/04/bad-argument-against-baseline-funding.html http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2009/04/bad-argument-against-baseline-funding.html]
:*[http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2009/04/nserc-peer-review-costs-more-than.html http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2009/04/nserc-peer-review-costs-more-than.html]
:*[http://harmsandcompany.com/main/2009/04/08/economics-of-peer-review-at-nserc/ http://harmsandcompany.com/main/2009/04/08/economics-of-peer-review-at-nserc/]
:*[http://harmsandcompany.com/main/2009/04/13/pernicious-economics/ http://harmsandcompany.com/main/2009/04/13/pernicious-economics/]
:*[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://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.
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ:Ref:DOI:10.1080/08989620802689821&oldid=607820"