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

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen
(started)
 
imported>Daniel Mietchen
(+comment)
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 stages of research.
 
:Received lots of discussion in the blogosphere, e.g.
:*[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/]

Revision as of 12:51, 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.
Received lots of discussion in the blogosphere, e.g.
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ:Ref:DOI:10.1080/08989620802689821&oldid=607824"