Cargando…
Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices
A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of co...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
F1000 Research Limited
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8825646/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35186273 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.2 |
_version_ | 1784647266372419584 |
---|---|
author | Conix, Stijn De Block, Andreas Vaesen, Krist |
author_facet | Conix, Stijn De Block, Andreas Vaesen, Krist |
author_sort | Conix, Stijn |
collection | PubMed |
description | A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8825646 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | F1000 Research Limited |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88256462022-02-17 Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices Conix, Stijn De Block, Andreas Vaesen, Krist F1000Res Opinion Article A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems. F1000 Research Limited 2021-12-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8825646/ /pubmed/35186273 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.2 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Conix S et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Opinion Article Conix, Stijn De Block, Andreas Vaesen, Krist Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices |
title | Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices |
title_full | Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices |
title_fullStr | Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices |
title_full_unstemmed | Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices |
title_short | Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices |
title_sort | grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices |
topic | Opinion Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8825646/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35186273 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT conixstijn grantwritingandgrantpeerreviewasquestionableresearchpractices AT deblockandreas grantwritingandgrantpeerreviewasquestionableresearchpractices AT vaesenkrist grantwritingandgrantpeerreviewasquestionableresearchpractices |