Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1297-1306 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Philosophy of science |
| Volume | 90 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Early online date | 17 Feb 2023 |
| Publication status | Published - 17 Dec 2023 |
Abstract
Recent science funding policy scholars and practitioners have advocated for the use of lotteries, or elements of random chance, as supplementations of traditional peer review for evaluating grant applications. One of the primary motivations for lotteries is their purported openness to innovative research. The purpose of this article is to argue that current proponents of funding science by lottery overestimate the viability of peer review and thus unduly restrict the scope of lotteries in science funding practice. I further show how this analysis suggests a different way of introducing lotteries into science funding policy.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- History
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- Philosophy
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- History and Philosophy of Science
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Philosophy of science, Vol. 90, No. 5, 17.12.2023, p. 1297-1306.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Peer Review, Innovation, and Predicting the Future of Science
T2 - The Scope of Lotteries in Science Funding Policy
AU - Shaw, Jamie
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Philosophy of Science Association.
PY - 2023/12/17
Y1 - 2023/12/17
N2 - Recent science funding policy scholars and practitioners have advocated for the use of lotteries, or elements of random chance, as supplementations of traditional peer review for evaluating grant applications. One of the primary motivations for lotteries is their purported openness to innovative research. The purpose of this article is to argue that current proponents of funding science by lottery overestimate the viability of peer review and thus unduly restrict the scope of lotteries in science funding practice. I further show how this analysis suggests a different way of introducing lotteries into science funding policy.
AB - Recent science funding policy scholars and practitioners have advocated for the use of lotteries, or elements of random chance, as supplementations of traditional peer review for evaluating grant applications. One of the primary motivations for lotteries is their purported openness to innovative research. The purpose of this article is to argue that current proponents of funding science by lottery overestimate the viability of peer review and thus unduly restrict the scope of lotteries in science funding practice. I further show how this analysis suggests a different way of introducing lotteries into science funding policy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85175638958&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/psa.2023.35
DO - 10.1017/psa.2023.35
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85175638958
VL - 90
SP - 1297
EP - 1306
JO - Philosophy of science
JF - Philosophy of science
SN - 0031-8248
IS - 5
ER -