Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line.
Gespeichert in:
| Titel: | Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line. |
|---|---|
| Autoren: | Luebber F; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.; Open Science Initiative, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany., Krach S; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. soeren.krach@uni-luebeck.de.; Open Science Initiative, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. soeren.krach@uni-luebeck.de., Paulus FM; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.; Open Science Initiative, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany., Rademacher L; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.; Open Science Initiative, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.; Center of Mental Health, Hospital for Addiction and Addictive Behaviour, Klinikum Stuttgart, Germany., Rahal RM; Behavioral Law & Economics, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany.; Institute for Cognition and Behavior, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria. |
| Quelle: | Nature communications [Nat Commun] 2025 Nov 06; Vol. 16 (1), pp. 9824. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Nov 06. |
| Publikationsart: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | English |
| Info zur Zeitschrift: | Publisher: Nature Pub. Group Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101528555 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2041-1723 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 20411723 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Nat Commun Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Original Publication: [London] : Nature Pub. Group |
| MeSH-Schlagworte: | Peer Review, Research*/methods , Research Personnel*/economics , Research Support as Topic*/economics, Germany ; Female ; Humans |
| Abstract: | Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Research funding is a key determinant of scientific progress. However, current allocation procedures for third-party funding are criticized due to high costs and biases in the selection. Here, we present data from a large German funding organization on an implementation of a lottery-first approach followed by peer review to allocate funding. We examine the changes in submissions and funded projects of female applicants after implementation, estimate the costs of the overall allocation process, and report on the attitudes and satisfaction of researchers and reviewers. The data show an increase of 10% in submissions and a 23% increase in funded projects from female applicants with the lottery-first approach compared to a previously used procedure. Additionally, the lottery-first approach was estimated to have 68% lower economic costs compared to a conventional single-stage peer review approach. Satisfaction with this funding approach was high and around half of applicants preferred an initial lottery followed by peer review over a conventional approach. Thus, the lottery-first approach is a promising addition to allocation procedures. (© 2025. The Author(s).) |
| References: | PLoS Biol. 2019 Jan 2;17(1):e3000065. (PMID: 30601806) Nature. 2011 Sep 28;477(7366):529-31. (PMID: 21956312) High Educ (Dordr). 2021;82(1):145-162. (PMID: 33041361) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12;105(32):11076-80. (PMID: 18663221) Neuron. 2021 Jul 7;109(13):2047-2074. (PMID: 34237278) Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Sep;5(9):1114-1115. (PMID: 34341553) PLoS One. 2017 Sep 8;12(9):e0183967. (PMID: 28886054) Nature. 2013 Mar 21;495(7441):314. (PMID: 23518554) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 22;111(16):5773-7. (PMID: 24733905) BMJ. 2011 Sep 27;343:d4797. (PMID: 21951756) JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Feb 1;6(2):e230855. (PMID: 36853608) PLoS One. 2015 Jun 15;10(6):e0130450. (PMID: 26075884) J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Aug;59(8):842-8. (PMID: 16828678) Sci Adv. 2023 Oct 20;9(42):eadi2205. (PMID: 37862417) Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 Feb 03;5:3. (PMID: 32025338) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Dec 10;121(50):e2407644121. (PMID: 39621909) Elife. 2021 Jan 18;10:. (PMID: 33459595) Nat Hum Behav. 2023 Jul;7(7):1031-1033. (PMID: 37349356) Nature. 2021 May 6;:. (PMID: 33963318) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Oct 6;112(40):12349-53. (PMID: 26392544) Bioscience. 2020 Jul 29;70(9):814-820. (PMID: 32973410) Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021 Nov 14;6(1):14. (PMID: 34776003) Nature. 2000 Apr 13;404(6779):695. (PMID: 10783858) Elife. 2022 Apr 04;11:. (PMID: 35373737) BMJ Open. 2013 May 28;3(5):. (PMID: 23793700) mBio. 2016 Apr 12;7(2):e00422-16. (PMID: 27073093) Ann Intern Med. 2010 May 4;152(9):616-7; author reply 617. (PMID: 20439584) Nature. 2022 Sep;609(7928):653. (PMID: 36127444) Nature. 2025 Aug;644(8075):24-27. (PMID: 40770444) BMJ Open. 2021 May 5;11(5):e047386. (PMID: 33952554) Elife. 2022 Nov 29;11:. (PMID: 36444975) Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2019 Aug;76:13-23. (PMID: 31558205) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 20;115(12):2952-2957. (PMID: 29507248) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Nov 26;121(48):e2404756121. (PMID: 39565316) Nat Hum Behav. 2022 May;6(5):607-608. (PMID: 35102349) Nature. 2020 Feb;578(7795):477-479. (PMID: 32071452) Nature. 2023 Apr;616(7955):22-24. (PMID: 37020000) BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 20;10(8):e035058. (PMID: 32819934) F1000Res. 2017 Aug 7;6:1335. (PMID: 29707193) Cell. 2021 Feb 4;184(3):561-565. (PMID: 33503447) Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):531-540. (PMID: 30739688) |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20251106 Date Completed: 20251106 Latest Revision: 20251109 |
| Update Code: | 20251109 |
| PubMed Central ID: | PMC12592401 |
| DOI: | 10.1038/s41467-025-65660-9 |
| PMID: | 41198695 |
| Datenbank: | MEDLINE |
Full Text 
Full Text Finder 
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstract: | Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.<br />Research funding is a key determinant of scientific progress. However, current allocation procedures for third-party funding are criticized due to high costs and biases in the selection. Here, we present data from a large German funding organization on an implementation of a lottery-first approach followed by peer review to allocate funding. We examine the changes in submissions and funded projects of female applicants after implementation, estimate the costs of the overall allocation process, and report on the attitudes and satisfaction of researchers and reviewers. The data show an increase of 10% in submissions and a 23% increase in funded projects from female applicants with the lottery-first approach compared to a previously used procedure. Additionally, the lottery-first approach was estimated to have 68% lower economic costs compared to a conventional single-stage peer review approach. Satisfaction with this funding approach was high and around half of applicants preferred an initial lottery followed by peer review over a conventional approach. Thus, the lottery-first approach is a promising addition to allocation procedures.<br /> (© 2025. The Author(s).) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2041-1723 |
| DOI: | 10.1038/s41467-025-65660-9 |