Abstract
Central to research funding are grant proposals that researchers send in to potential funders for review, in the hope of approval. A survey of policies at major research funders found that there is room for more transparency in the process of grant review, which would strengthen the case for the efficiency of public spending on research. On that basis, debate was invited on which transparency measures should be implemented and how, with some concrete suggestions at hand. The present article adds to this discussion by providing further context from the literature, along with considerations on the effect size of the proposed measures. The article then explores the option of opening to the public key components of the process, makes the case for pilot projects in this area, and sketches out the potential that such measures might have to transform the research landscape in those areas in which they are implemented.
Highlights
Central to research funding are grant proposals that researchers send in to potential funders for review, in the hope of approval
GMK discuss the merits of adding transparency to the grant proposal review process in one of two ways: First, in what they refer to as the ‘‘incremental’’ approach, individual components of the process would be made more open
N It would allow more public participation in research. They suggest the radical approach may be ‘‘quite transformative’’ in terms of both scholarly communication and public participation in research. They caution that the current research system and associated evaluation procedures are not set up for such radical changes and conclude by inviting debate on ‘‘which transparency measures to put in place, and how’’ [1]
Summary
In this issue of PLOS Biology, Gurwitz et al [1] (subsequently referred to as GMK) report on a survey of transparency at major funders of biomedical research. They looked at what information funders make public about assessment procedures and funded proposals, as detailed in their Table 1. They suggest the radical approach may be ‘‘quite transformative’’ (or ‘‘sweeping’’) in terms of both scholarly communication and public participation in research They caution that the current research system and associated evaluation procedures are not set up for such radical changes and conclude by inviting debate on ‘‘which transparency measures to put in place, and how’’ [1]. I would like to follow this invitation by putting forth some thoughts on an open research funding system, its transformative nature, and how we might be able to pave the way to get there
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
