Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective
暂无分享,去创建一个
Hanna Kokko | Jan Engelstädter | Anne Charmantier | H. Kokko | R. Butlin | A. Groot | K. King | M. Neiman | A. Charmantier | J. Reid | J. Engelstädter | Astrid T. Groot | Stephanie Meirmans | Roger K. Butlin | Kayla C. King | Jane M. Reid | Maurine Neiman | S. Meirmans
[1] Danielle Li,et al. Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? , 2015, Science.
[2] Harold Varmus,et al. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[3] Richard B. Freeman,et al. Collaboration: Strength in diversity , 2014, Nature.
[4] David J. Currie,et al. Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding , 2013, PloS one.
[5] H. Nowotny. Real science is excellent science – how to interpret post-academic science, Mode 2 and the ERC , 2006 .
[6] Kendall Powell,et al. Young, talented and fed-up: scientists tell their stories , 2016, Nature.
[7] Jonathan Adams. Collaborations: The fourth age of research , 2013, Nature.
[8] S. Hodge,et al. A manifesto for fair and equitable research funding in ecology , 2017 .
[9] Peter van den Besselaar,et al. Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions , 2015, J. Informetrics.
[10] Brian C. Martinson,et al. The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.
[11] James Wilsdon. The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management , 2016 .
[12] Mike Thelwall,et al. The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management , 2015 .
[13] M. Heinemann. The Matthew Effect , 2016, Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon.
[14] Heidi Ledford. How to solve the world's biggest problems , 2015, Nature.
[15] T. Kuhn,et al. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .
[16] M. Neiman,et al. Sex in the wild: How and why field‐based studies contribute to solving the problem of sex * , 2018, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.
[17] G. Laudel. The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions , 2006 .
[18] Andrew Gibson,et al. Arts and Humanities Research, Redefining Public Benefit, and Research Prioritization in Ireland. , 2017 .
[19] C. Wagner,et al. Open countries have strong science , 2017, Nature.
[20] Johan Bollen,et al. From funding agencies to scientific agency , 2014, EMBO reports.
[21] C. Bloch,et al. The size of research funding: Trends and implications , 2015 .
[22] Adam Eyre-Walker,et al. The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations , 2013, PLoS biology.
[23] L M Bouter,et al. How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers , 2016, BMJ Open.
[24] Samuel A. Moore,et al. Erratum: “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence , 2017, Palgrave Communications.
[25] Vincent Larivière,et al. Scientists have most impact when they're free to move , 2017, Nature.
[26] Peter A. Abrams,et al. The Predictive Ability of Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Case of Ecology and the US National Science Foundation , 1991 .
[27] B. Menge,et al. Transformative Research Is Not Easily Predicted. , 2017, Trends in ecology & evolution.
[28] Arturo Casadevall,et al. Grant funding: Playing the odds. , 2016, Science.
[29] Laurel Smith-Doerr,et al. How Diversity Matters in the US Science and Engineering Workforce: A Critical Review Considering Integration in Teams, Fields, and Organizational Contexts , 2017 .
[30] R. Cousens. Why can't we make research grant allocation systems more consistent? A personal opinion , 2019, Ecology and evolution.
[31] Cindy E. Hauser,et al. The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? , 2018, PLoS biology.
[32] Seokbeom Kwon,et al. A measure of knowledge flow between specific fields: Implications of interdisciplinarity for impact and funding , 2017, PloS one.
[33] J. Ioannidis,et al. What Happens When Underperforming Big Ideas in Research Become Entrenched? , 2016, JAMA.
[34] Sara E. Kuebbing,et al. Long‐term research in ecology and evolution: a survey of challenges and opportunities , 2018 .
[35] K. Vaesen,et al. How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers? , 2017, PloS one.
[36] James A. Evans,et al. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology , 2019, Nature.
[37] Liv Langfeldt,et al. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment , 2011 .
[38] R. Whitley,et al. The Impact of Changing Funding and Authority Relationships on Scientific Innovations , 2018 .
[39] Rinze Benedictus,et al. Fewer numbers, better science , 2016, Nature.
[40] M. Edwards,et al. Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition , 2017, Environmental engineering science.
[41] Effective operation of competitive research funding systems , 2018, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers.
[42] Yuyu Zhou,et al. Global urban signatures of phenotypic change in animal and plant populations , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[43] R. Ricklefs,et al. The evolutionary ecology of senescence , 2008 .
[44] Daniel R. Brumbaugh,et al. Long‐Term Studies Contribute Disproportionately to Ecology and Policy , 2017 .
[45] L. Bromham,et al. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success , 2016, Nature.
[46] R. Scoble,et al. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review , 2014 .
[47] A. Hendry,et al. Human influences on evolution, and the ecological and societal consequences , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
[48] Kendall Powell. These labs are remarkably diverse — here’s why they’re winning at science , 2018, Nature.
[49] L. Hoffman,et al. Strength in diversity. , 2014, Cell host & microbe.
[50] Gabriele Bammer,et al. Should we discipline interdisciplinarity? , 2017, Palgrave Communications.
[51] Paula E. Stephan. How Economics Shapes Science , 2012 .
[52] Ulrike Felt,et al. Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists’ Work and Lives , 2016, Minerva.
[53] Donald Geman,et al. Opinion: Science in the age of selfies , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[54] T. Clutton‐Brock,et al. Individuals and populations: the role of long-term, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.
[55] M. Alberti,et al. Urban driven phenotypic changes: empirical observations and theoretical implications for eco-evolutionary feedback , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
[56] S. de Rijcke,et al. The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding , 2018, Minerva.
[57] O. Seehausen,et al. Why evolutionary biologists should get seriously involved in ecological monitoring and applied biodiversity assessment programs , 2014, Evolutionary applications.
[58] R. Merton. The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.