When applying for research funding, one is forced to submit novel ideas for cutting edge research and development projects to funding bodies (e.g. ERC), who will then send these research proposals out for review to those experts who are the competitors of the submitting researcher.
This submitting researcher will not know who reviewed the grant application, and often it appears that grants are rejected because of reviews that are rather politically motivated instead of quality based.
What is your experience and/or opinion on that?
Prof. Immo Trinks I understand how you might feel, especially mentioning a quality-based grant proposal! Very painful. Although while it is believed that a lot of rots happen in the academic setting, there is still no concrete evidence to support this claim, looking at it critically scientifically. Understanding the flip-flop theory of life, one has to move on. I try to console myself when my articles suffer tough criticism after receiving "major revision" as a response from fellow reviewers, knowing well that I have had times to do the same against some articles while reviewing them. So, I hold out condemnation against my fellow reviewers' observations; because "your view may be different from mine" is the game in scientific approaches.
This submitting researcher will not know who reviewed the grant application, and often it appears that grants are rejected because of reviews that are rather politically motivated instead of quality based. ...
Thus, reviews must be single or double blinded so that the identity of author couldn't be disclosed.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change