Rethinking Resource Allocation in Science

TL;DR

This paper critically examines the current peer review process for science funding, highlighting its limitations amid growing demand and proposing a rethinking of resource allocation strategies.

Contribution

It introduces novel perspectives on optimizing research funding distribution beyond traditional peer review methods.

Findings

Peer review faces challenges due to increasing demand for research funding.

Current funding systems may not efficiently allocate resources.

Alternative approaches could improve funding effectiveness.

Abstract

US funding agencies alone distribute a yearly total of roughly $65B dollars largely through the process of proposal peer review: scientists compete for project funding by submitting grant proposals which are evaluated by selected panels of peer reviewers. Similar funding systems are in place in most advanced democracies. However, in spite of its venerable history, proposal peer review is increasingly struggling to deal with the increasing mismatch between demand and supply of research funding.