Linguistic analysis reveals the hidden details of research grant proposal peer review reports

Posted in Research on September 10th, 2018 by steve

“Despite peer review panels being the most common way of selecting applicants for research funding, little is known about how selections are made. New methods for large-scale text analysis allow for review panels’ written reports to be analysed and studied for patterns. Peter van den Besselaar and Ulf Sandström show how the frequency of positive and negative evaluation words correlate with applicants’ final scores …” (more)

[LSE Impact Blog, 10 September]

Tags: ,

UK grant success rates prompt worldwide comparisons

Posted in Research on October 10th, 2016 by steve

UK“The success rate for grant proposals at UK research councils has fallen again despite efforts to weed out weak applications, intensifying the worldwide debate over whether academics’ time is being wasted by ultra-competitive funding schemes …” (more)

[David Matthews, Times Higher Education, 6 October]

Tags: ,

Grant application rejected over choice of font

Posted in Research on October 31st, 2015 by steve

UK“On the list of reasons a grant application might be rejected, most researchers would put ‘typesetting’ fairly low. Hence the amazement when Susannah Maidment, a palaeontologist at Imperial College London, announced on social media that her fellowship application had been thrown out for being in the wrong font …” (more)

[Daniel Cressey, Nature, 29 October]

Tags: , ,

What would happen if grant reviews were made public?

Posted in Research on January 8th, 2015 by steve

International“Many scientists struggle to understand why some grant applications succeed and others fail, perhaps explaining the online popularity of two articles calling for increased transparency in the grant peer-review process …” (more)

[Chris Woolston, Nature, 8 January]

Tags: ,

The academic backlog

Posted in Research on May 9th, 2013 by steve

“Here’s an interesting question to ask any scientist: If you were to receive no more research funding, and just focus on writing up the data you have, how long would it take? The answer tends to go up with seniority, but a typical answer is 3 to 5 years …” (more)

[BishopBlog, 9 May]

Tags: ,

Let me give you some advice …

Posted in Research on May 5th, 2013 by steve

“If I were to offer a new academic advice it would be to not be afraid to take advice from your colleagues; especially with respect to writing. I was talking to one of my collaborators the other day and they told me ‘I never let anyone in the Department read my grants before I submit them; I am too scared’ …” (more)

[Sylvia McLain, Girl, Interrupting, 5 May]

Tags: ,

An unruly calculus: doing, funding, and communicating science

Posted in Life on February 9th, 2013 by steve

“I recently returned from ScienceOnline, a meeting for journalists, scientists, artists, teachers, and others who discuss (and do!) science on the internet. This was my second time at the conference and, like last year, I came home with a mind full of ideas about effective outreach, open science, and teaching innovations …” (more)

[Jacquelyn Gill, The Contemplative Mammoth, 8 February]

Tags: , , ,