Research graph
References from Why draw lots? Funder motivations for using partial randomisation to allocate research grants.. Local targets link to admitted publications; unresolved targets remain external evidence.
The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding: Funders need to experiment with versions of peer review and decision making.
10.15252/embr.201949472 · 2019 · External reference
Could agentic AI topple grant-funding systems?.
10.1038/d41586-026-01297-y · 2026 · External reference
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?.
10.12688/f1000research.11917.2 · 2017 · External reference
The costs of competition in distributing scarce research funds.
10.1073/pnas.2407644121 · 2024 · External reference
Funding lotteries for research grant allocation: An extended taxonomy and evaluation of their fairness.
10.1093/reseval/rvae025 · 2024 · External reference
Peer review in funding-by-lottery: A systematic overview and expansion.
2022 · External reference
Rethink funding by putting the lottery first.
10.1038/s41562-023-01649-y · 2023 · External reference
Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line.
10.1038/s41467-025-65660-9 · 2025 · External reference
The British Academy is trialling a new, fairer method of selecting its Small Research Grants - here's why.
2022 · External reference
Focal randomisation: An optimal mechanism for the evaluation of R&D projects.
10.3152/030234207x265394 · 2007 · External reference
The experimental research funder’s handbook.
10.6084/m9.figshare.17102426 · External reference
Bingo!.
2026 · External reference
Research funding: the case for a modified lottery.
10.1128/mbio.00694-16 · 2016 · External reference
Peer review or lottery? A critical analysis of two different forms of decision-making mechanisms for allocation of research grants.
10.1177/0162243918822744 · 2019 · External reference
Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions.
10.1371/journal.pbio.3000065 · 2019 · External reference
The Luck of the Draw: Wellcome's Institutional Fund for Research Culture [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations].
10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20057.2 · 2023 · External reference
10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z · 2020 · Admitted local publication
Sceptics and champions: participant insights on the use of partial randomization to allocate research culture funding.
10.1093/reseval/rvaf006 · 2025 · External reference
Where next for partial randomisation of research funding? The feasibility of RCTs and alternatives.
10.12688/wellcomeopenres.19565.2 · 2024 · External reference
Experiments with randomisation in research funding: scoping and workshop report.
10.6084/m9.figshare.16553067 · External reference
RoRI Randomisation Project.
2021 · External reference
Policy on Good Research and Innovation (GRIP).
2021 · External reference
10.4135/9781412963909
10.4135/9781412963909 · 2008 · External reference
10.4135/9781506374680
10.4135/9781506374680 · 2013 · External reference
Using thematic analysis in psychology.
10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · 2006 · External reference
Dealing with the limits of peer review with innovative approaches to allocating research funding.
2021 · External reference
Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer review for the funding of science.
10.1093/reseval/rvz034 · 2020 · External reference
The lottery in Babylon—On the role of chance in scientific success.
10.1080/23299460.2020.1806429 · 2020 · External reference
