Abstract

In response to increasing fatigue with the failings of the peer review system, granting agencies are beginning to consider lotteries as an alternative. I argue that citizen review, in which non-scientists determine funding allocations, has advantages over both. This is particularly true when it comes to identifying which research is most pursuitworthy.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call