Asking applicants to review competing bids is efficient, but opens the way for attempts to game the system
Photo credits: Scott Graham / Unsplash
Asking applicants for research funding to decide who will receive grants slashes review times by more than a half, according to a new study from the Research on Research Institute at University College London and the Volkswagen Foundation. But with fierce competition for funding, safeguards are needed to counter attempts to game the system.
Research funding schemes are traditionally assessed by external expert reviewers, appointed by the funder. This alternative, known as distributed peer review (DPR), requires applicants for a funding call to also act as assessors for the other applications.
Discover the latest in research funding every Tuesday with Funding Newswire. Dive into detailed articles with our monthly or yearly subscriptions or start with a free trial
NOTE: if you're a part of one of our Network member organisations, you get free access by signing up with your institutional email. Verify your eligibility here.
Receive the Funding Newswire [full access requires a subscription] each Tuesday, our Policy Bulletin each Thursday, and news about bridging Europe’s east-west innovation gap twice a month in The Widening. 
A unique international forum for public research organisations and companies to connect their external engagement with strategic interests around their R&D system.