Send message to Author

Short abstract:

I use a representative survey of researchers in Germany to show that those who perceive bias in grant peer review tend to also be more open to the introduction of lotteries into science funding decisions.

Long abstract:

In the current debate on the possible introduction of lotteries in research funding decisions, two potential advantages have played central roles: First, that lotteries could have the potential to exclude human bias in peer review decision, and second, that they could produce legitimate funding decisions with much fewer resources.

Time and money notwithstanding, both of these promises fundamentally address a legitimacy problem. This is arguably because the empirical evidence for systematic biases in peer review has generally been interpreted as an issue of legitimacy for the funding system. However, the idea of lotteries in funding decisions arguably goes even further: rather than a reform aimed at reestablishing trust by reducing opportunities for bias, they actually open up a revolutionary new way to reach decisions in science funding that categorically excludes bias.

In the end, it is researchers themselves who will apply for and see their scientific proposals funded, or not. They are the ones who will review, who will contribute to the outcome of a panel, who will decide on proposals’ inclusion in a lottery pot. However, there are yet few empirical study that focusses on scientists’ attitudes towards science funding decisions, the potential benefits of the introduction of lotteries and the relative importance they attribute to bias in the existing system. As a consequence, I use a representative survey of researchers in Germany to find out whether those who perceive bias in peer review tend to also be more open to the introduction of lotteries into science funding decisions.