@neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social
Post #1935079
2026-03-24 23:14 UTC
Idea for a different way of doing project grants. Make decisions about which projects to fund based only on the questions asked, and then require successful grantees to go through a multi round post decision review process to sharpen up the methods and make sure they can answer the question.
One of the main reasons I find grant proposals and reviews unsatisfactory is the incentives are there for applicants to hide methodological issues which limits the collaborative value of the review. In this version, once you get the funding you want to bare all to get the best feedback to improve.
#metaresearch #academicchatter #science
Replies (2)
-
@brembs@mastodon.social 2026-03-25 19:11
@neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social I can imagine this could be so constructive! Great idea!
-
@adredish@neuromatch.social 2026-03-25 21:41
@neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social but what happens if they ignore the feedback? They already have the funding. Also, does anyone actually do the project proposed? I don't think I've ever done the actual grant proposed project because our observations change our understanding (and techniques work differently than advertised / expected / did last year .... which opens up surprising questions about what changed that we didn't think mattered...)