Lotteries make science fairer

References

• Avin, Shahar. 2015. Breaking the Grant Cycle: On the Rational Allocation of Public Resources to Scientific Research Projects . Cambridge : University of Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Brandom, Robert. 1998. Making It Explicit . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campanario, Juan Miguel. 1998a. “Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today – Part 1.” Science Communication 19 (3): 181–211. doi: 10.1177/1075547098019003002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campanario, Juan Miguel. 1998b. “Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today – Part 2.” Science Communication 19 (4): 277–306. doi: 10.1177/1075547098019004002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, Stephen , Jonathan Cole , and Gary Simon . 1981. “Chance and Consensus in Peer Review.” Science 214 (4523): 881–886. doi: 10.1126/science.7302566
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, Ferric C , and Arturo Casadevall . 2016. “Research Funding: The Case for a Modified Lottery.” mBio 7 (2): 1–8. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00422-16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felt, Ulrike. 2009. “Science in Society: Dialogues and Scientific Responsibility.” Science & Devenir de L’homme 59: 46–55.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, M. , S. B. Friedman , and B. Strauss . 1994. “The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review.” Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 143. doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020069019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillies, Donald. 2014. “Selecting Applications for Funding: Why Random Choice is Better Than Peer Review.” RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation 2 (1): 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Goldsworthy, J. 2009. “Research Grant Mania.” Australian Universities Review 50 (2): 17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Graves, Nicholas , Adrian G. Barnett , and Philip Clarke . 2011. “Cutting Random Funding Decision.” Nature 469 (299): 1.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, Daniel. 1999. “Another Step Towards Reshaping Peer Review at the NIH.” Lancet 354 (9178): 577. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)77931-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heackett, Edward. 1990. “Science as a Vocation in the 1990s: The Changing Organizational Culture of Academic Science.” Journal of Higher Education 6 (13): 241–279.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luukkonen, Terttu. 2012. “Conservatism and Risk-Taking in Peer Review: Emerging ERC Practices.” Research Evaluation 21 (2): 46–80.
   Google Scholar
• Mayo, Nancy , James Brophy , Mark Goldberg , Marina Klein , Sydney Miller , Robert Platt , and Judith Ritchie . 2006. “Peering at Peer Review Revealed High Degree of Chance Associated with Funding of Grant Applications.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59 (8): 842–848. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mervis, Jeffrey. 2020. “Peering Into Peer Review.” Science 343 (6171): 596–598. doi: 10.1126/science.343.6171.596
   Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard , Phil Macnaghten , and Jack Stilgoe . 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39: 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement . Edited by E. Kelly . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Resch, K. I. , E. Ernst , and J. Garrow . 2000. “A Randomized Controlled Study of Reviewer Bias Against an Unconventional Therapy.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 93: 164–167. doi: 10.1177/014107680009300402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risse, M. 2004. “What We Owe to the Global Poor.” The Journal of Ethics 9: 81–117. doi: 10.1007/s10892-004-3321-z
   Google Scholar
• Rothwell, Peter M. , and Christopher N. Martyn . 2000. “Reproducibility of Peer Review in Clinical Neuroscience: Is Agreement Between Reviewers any Greater Than Would be Expected by Chance Alone?” Brain 123 (9): 1964–1969. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.9.1964
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roumbanis, Lambros. 2017. “Academic Judgments Under Uncertainty: A Study of Collective Anchoring Effects in Swedish Research Council Panel Groups.” Social Studies of Science 47 (1): 95–116. doi: 10.1177/0306312716659789
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roumbanis, Lambros. 2019. “Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-Making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 44 (6): 994–1019. doi: 10.1177/0162243918822744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidtz, David. 2012. “The Institution of Property.” In Environmental Ethics: What Really Matter, What Really Works , edited by David Schmidtz , and Elizabeth Willott , 406–420. New York : Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schomberg, R. 2011. “Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields.”
   Google Scholar
• Stehbens, W. E. 1999. “Basic Philosophy and Concepts Underlying Scientific Peer Review.” Medical Hypotheses 52 (1): 31–36. doi: 10.1054/mehy.1997.0628
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis, Cecil L. , and Stephen J. McNamee . 1990. “Social Networks of Science and Patterns of Publication in Leading Sociology Journals, 1960 to1985.” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 11 (4): 363–381. doi: 10.1177/107554709001100401
   Google Scholar