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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Conix, Stijn, De Block, Andreas, Vaesen, Krist
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