Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
The landscape of academic grant funding is notoriously competitive and plagued by lengthy, bureaucratic processes, exacerbated by difficulties in finding willing reviewers. Distributed […]
An introduction to a series of short essays exploring contemporary issues of academic freedom from a range of perspectives, focusing both on British and international trends.
Perhaps the solution to conflicting spending priorities, write Rod Lamberts and Will J. Grant, is simply to acknowledge that people will always have conflicting priorities, and think about how best to live alongside each other: mythical, homogeneous pub-goer and irrelevant, out-of-touch academic alike.
Shonkily researched assertions are okay if you enjoy the safe patronage of a major news organisation, argues Rob Brooks. But know, he adds, you would never get away with such abject laziness, or such contempt for professional disinterest in a grant proposal to a federal funding body.
The new report of the REF from Lord Stern hopefully may shift the spotlight away from individual researchers themselves and onto the organizational practice of their universities, argues Richard Watermeyer.
In an effort to prevent ‘gaming’ the REF, new recommendation from Lord Stern cuts down on the freedom of academics to move from institution as they see fit. Is the cure worse than the disease?
in the wake of the leavers winning the Brexit vote, the British Academy of Social Sciences predicts uncertainty for the social science community, ‘with implications for research funding, international collaboration, freedom of movement, and capacity building.’
Two scientists at the Georgia State University Language Research Center argue that their basic research into memory can “yield profound and transformative results” in the study of autism and developmental delay — hardly fitting the description of “trivial, unnecessary, or duplicative” that Senator Jeff Flake labeled it in a recent report.
Following a drama-free debut in subcommittee last week, the full Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives on a voice vote approved a 2017 funding bill for commerce, justice and science agencies in the U.S. government, including $7.4 billion for the National Science Foundation. The next step is a vote by the full House,