Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer review for the funding of science

Volume: 29, Issue: 2, Pages: 150 - 157
Published: Dec 16, 2019
Abstract
The way research is, and should be, funded by the public sphere is the subject of renewed interest for sociology, economics, management sciences, and more recently, for the philosophy of science. In this contribution, I propose a qualitative, epistemological criticism of the funding by lottery model, which is advocated by a growing number of scholars as an alternative to peer review. This lottery scheme draws on the lack of efficiency and of...
Paper Details
Title
Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer review for the funding of science
Published Date
Dec 16, 2019
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
150 - 157
Citation AnalysisPro
  • Scinapse’s Top 10 Citation Journals & Affiliations graph reveals the quality and authenticity of citations received by a paper.
  • Discover whether citations have been inflated due to self-citations, or if citations include institutional bias.