Cargando…

The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants

BACKGROUND: The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers belie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Mengyao, Choy, Vernon, Clarke, Philip, Barnett, Adrian, Blakely, Tony, Pomeroy, Lucy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6996170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32025338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z
_version_ 1783493477612388352
author Liu, Mengyao
Choy, Vernon
Clarke, Philip
Barnett, Adrian
Blakely, Tony
Pomeroy, Lucy
author_facet Liu, Mengyao
Choy, Vernon
Clarke, Philip
Barnett, Adrian
Blakely, Tony
Pomeroy, Lucy
author_sort Liu, Mengyao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants. METHODS: This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (n = 79) in favour and 25% (n = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (n = 50) in favour and 37% (n = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application. CONCLUSIONS: The Health Research Council’s experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6996170
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69961702020-02-05 The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants Liu, Mengyao Choy, Vernon Clarke, Philip Barnett, Adrian Blakely, Tony Pomeroy, Lucy Res Integr Peer Rev Research BACKGROUND: The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants. METHODS: This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (n = 79) in favour and 25% (n = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (n = 50) in favour and 37% (n = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application. CONCLUSIONS: The Health Research Council’s experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery. BioMed Central 2020-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6996170/ /pubmed/32025338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Liu, Mengyao
Choy, Vernon
Clarke, Philip
Barnett, Adrian
Blakely, Tony
Pomeroy, Lucy
The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants
title The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants
title_full The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants
title_fullStr The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants
title_full_unstemmed The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants
title_short The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants
title_sort acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6996170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32025338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z
work_keys_str_mv AT liumengyao theacceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT choyvernon theacceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT clarkephilip theacceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT barnettadrian theacceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT blakelytony theacceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT pomeroylucy theacceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT liumengyao acceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT choyvernon acceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT clarkephilip acceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT barnettadrian acceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT blakelytony acceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants
AT pomeroylucy acceptabilityofusingalotterytoallocateresearchfundingasurveyofapplicants