Lottery before peer-review? New meta-science paper out in Nature Communications!

🚀 New publication on a fairer and more economic way to distribute research funding!

Our new paper in Nature Communications presents survey data for a “lottery-first” approach to science funding — where an initial lottery determines who enters the competition, followed by traditional peer review.

🔗 Read it here: OA-Link: https://lnkd.in/eDma7jmb

We originally proposed this method in a previous publication (🔗 Read it here: OA-Link: https://rdcu.be/eOLDQ), suggesting it could reduce bias and economic costs in funding allocation.

Now, using data from the Freiraum funding line of the Foundation for Innovation in Higher Education (Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre), we found evidence supporting that idea:

✅ A higher proportion of female applicants and awardees compared to the previous procedure
✅ Substantial cost savings — distributing €50 million required estimated < €5 million for the “lottery-first” approach vs. > €13 million for conventional approach
✅ Positive reception in the community — about half of applicants preferred the lottery-first to a conventional approach

Our findings show that combining chance and scientific excellence can make research funding more economic (less sunk costs) and fairer (lower entry barriers)


Thanks to the Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre (StIL) for this great collaboration!

This publication is with Finn Lübber, Frieder M. Paulus, Lena Rademacher and Sören Krach (all Universität zu Lübeck) together with Rima-Maria Rahal (Universität Wien).