CZ:Ref:DOI:10.1080/08989620802689821: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen (+comment) |
imported>Chris Day (Daniel, something like this? Probably nned to work on the parameters. indentation and title for one.) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
}} | }} | ||
: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 stages of research. | :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 stages of research. | ||
{{Hidden| | |||
:*[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 24: | Line 23: | ||
:*[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/]|Received lots of discussion in the blogosphere}} | ||
Revision as of 16:55, 19 April 2009
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 stages of research.