English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Competition for research funds has, in the recent decade, become hypercompetitive. Commonly, to determine which proposals receive funding, a system of peer review is used, which is broadly accepted, easily understood, and broadly trusted among researchers. It is often considered the best system in use, but it suffers from important shortcomings, and adaptations to overcome these shortcomings have small and often short-lived effects. Hence, the preference for peer review does not mean it  necessarily  outperforms all other systems. In fact, it is time for an open discussion about alternative allocation mechanisms. Random allocation of research funding may be a viable alternative to the current peer review system. In particular the “organized randomness” of a  modified lottery  is interesting, combining the benefits of randomization with some of the most valuable aspects of peer review. Still, many questions remain and this is certainly not a plea to allocate all research funds using lotteries without further research. But we need to be prepared to consider alternatives,  even though they are not perfect , and modified lotteries should be part of the solution.

The modified lottery: Formalizing the intrinsic randomness of research funding