Post #1847078

2026-04-14 19:02 UTC

@sus @dantheclamman Problem with that is that there usually isn’t enough for all of the “must absolutelies” so all of those should be funded at random. Or if you want to be rational, spend half the pot on the top ranked and the rest at random on the rest. Then check in 10 years time. Hahaha.

Replies (3)

@dantheclamman@scicomm.xyz 2026-04-14 19:15

@etp @sus I often get the response oh man, that data is absolutely crucial to get, we agree! We just won't be the ones funding that. They can make their materials very wishy washy so they can exercise a lot of discretion about whether the application is in scope for them

Open ##1847079
@pence@scholar.social 2026-04-14 19:24

@etp @sus @dantheclamman Yep, just had a recent grant evaluated "A+, but we ran out of money before we got to you in the ranked list." At least I don't have to revise it much for next year!

Open ##1847080
@naga@toot.cat 2026-04-15 02:52

@etp @sus @dantheclamman A colleague of mine once submitted a grant for competitive review that got perfect scores by all reviewers. She didn't get the funding. Back-channel communications suggested it was because she still had another revision cycle available to her, so some funds were prioritized for projects on their last chance. Say what, now? Not least, that's a good eight months' delay on her funding. And there's no guarantee the next round of reviewers would like the exact same proposal as much.

Open ##1847081