Partial lottery can make grant allocation more fair, more efficient, and more diverse

We call on research funding organisations to experiment with different models for integrating partial randomisation into their grant allocation processes as well as to assess the feasibility, the potential implications, and the perceptions of such models. Traditional models of grant allocation have usually been based on peer review to rank applications and allocate grants. These models have been shown to suffer from various shortcomings. In particular, we believe that partial randomisation holds the potential of being more fair, more efficient, and more diverse. In addition, it may lead to more responsible research practices. We outline a proposal for such a grant allocation process and sketch various arguments in favour of it. We also address potential counterarguments and conclude that partial randomisation in grant allocation holds the potential to lead to many benefits and therefore warrants further experimentation and implementation

How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the biomedical scientist's perception of the prevailing publication culture. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group interview study. SETTING: Four university medical centres in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Three randomly selected groups of biomedical scientists (PhD, postdoctoral staff members and full professors). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main themes for discussion were selected by participants. RESULTS: Frequently perceived detrimental effects of contemporary publication culture were the strong focus on citation measures (like the Journal Impact Factor and the H-index), gift and ghost authorships and the order of authors, the peer review process, competition, the funding system and publication bias. These themes were generally associated with detrimental and undesirable effects on publication practices and on the validity of reported results. Furthermore, senior scientists tended to display a more cynical perception of the publication culture than their junior colleagues. However, even among the PhD students and the postdoctoral fellows, the sentiment was quite negative. Positive perceptions of specific features of contemporary scientific and publication culture were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the current publication culture leads to negative sentiments, counterproductive stress levels and, most importantly, to questionable research practices among junior and senior biomedical scientists

Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should organisations focus on?

The widespread problems with scientific fraud, questionable research practices, and the reliability of scientific results have led to an increased focus on research integrity (RI). International organisations and networks have been established, declarations have been issued, and codes of conducts have been formed. The abstract principles of these documents are now also being translated into concrete topic areas that Research Performing organisations (RPOs) and Research Funding organisations (RFOs) should focus on. However, so far, we know very little about disciplinary differences in the need for RI support from RPOs and RFOs. The paper attempts to fill this knowledge gap. It reports on a comprehensive focus group study with 30 focus group interviews carried out in eight different countries across Europe focusing on the following research question: “Which RI topics would researchers and stakeholders from the four main areas of research (humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science, and medical science incl. biomedicine) prioritise for RPOs and RFOs?” The paper reports on the results of these focus group interviews and gives an overview of the priorities of the four main areas of research. The paper ends with six policy recommendations and a reflection on how the results of the study can be used in RPOs and RFOs.Modern and Contemporary Studie

Promoties in de geneeskunde: verspilde onderzoeksinspanning of noodzakelijk?

Veel dokters gaan promoveren omdat dat hun carrièrekansen vergroot, want bij de populairste opleidingsplekken maak je zonder doctorstitel weinig kans. Het artikel van Wolters elders in dit tijdschrift geeft belangrijke informatie over deze promotiefabriek, met inzichten in het nut en de noodzaak voor dokters om te promoveren.1 Het roept echter ook veel vragen op. Hebben we al die promoties wel nodig? Wat zijn de gevolgen van al deze promoties en zijn er andere factoren die deze toename kunnen verklaren? In dit commentaar probeer ik deze vragen te beantwoorden. Ik ga in op de motivatie van promovendi, de gevolgen van de promotiefabriek op het welzijn van promovendi en de invloed op de kwaliteit van wetenschap. Ook bekijk ik achterliggende oorzaken in het wetenschappelijke systeem van deze promovendigolf. De promovendi Als ik jonge arts-onderzoekers spreek, twijfel ik wel eens aan de intrinsieke motivatie voor het promotie-onderwerp. Meestal voert de promovendus een onderzoek uit dat is bedacht door een ..