Addressing conservatism in funding decisions via enhanced selection mechanisms
Abstract:
In recent years, concerns that peer review of grant proposals may disfavor innovative research – often referred to as conservatism in science funding – have led to proposed interventions on the selection mechanisms to counteract this conservatism. While several funders have begun implementing some of these interventions, their effectiveness remains unknown. We evaluate the impact of these interventions on conservatism using data from the Novo Nordisk Foundation on 273 calls for proposals and more than 46,000 peer-review evaluations collected over a decade. Our study relies on a quasi-natural experiment and on the simulation of counterfactuals with computer models. The interventions examined include: (1) the creation of novelty-dedicated funding streams designed to attract and reward innovative, interdisciplinary, and high-risk high-gain research proposals. (2) The use of “golden tickets” (“wild cards”), which allow each reviewer to unilaterally promote one proposal of their choice. (3) Funding lotteries, where reviewers select a broad set of fundable proposals from which grant winners are randomly chosen. Results show that the effectiveness of these interventions depends on what aspect of novelty is prioritized. Novelty-dedicated calls effectively attract and promote science projects that recombine theories, concepts, methods, and tools in novel ways (stronger recombination). In contrast, golden tickets and funding lotteries are more effective in supporting projects that develop entirely new theories, concepts, methods, or tools (newer vintage).
To register for this seminar with Ticket Tailor please go to:
https://buytickets.at/universityofsussex8/1467851