EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 39 / No 2 (Février 2023) Med Sci (Paris), 39 2 (2023) 170-176 References
Free Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 39, Number 2, Février 2023
Page(s) 170 - 176
Section Repères
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2023004
Published online 17 February 2023
  1. Brette R. Le modèle managérial de la recherche. Critique et alternative. Med Sci (Paris) 2022; 38 : 84–8. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Lutzky A. ANR : quels sont les taux de succès des appels à projets entre 2005 et 2019 ? Aef Info2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. Milojevic S, Radicchi F, Walsh JP. Changing demographics of scientific careers: The rise of the temporary workforce. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2018 ; 115 : 12616–12623. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Tahir T. The irresistible rise of academic bureaucracy 2010 ; Manchester: The Guardian. [Google Scholar]
  5. Binswanger M. Excellence by Nonsense: The Competition for Publications in Modern Science. In: Bartling S, Friesike S, eds. Germany : Springer, Cham, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  6. Schneider SL. 2018 Faculty Workload Survey : Report of Primary Findings. : Federal Demonstration Partnership, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Larousserie D. Les raisons du déclin de la recherche en France. Le Monde. Paris : Louis Dreyfus, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pagano M. Don’t run biomedical science as a business. Nature 2017 ; 547 : 381. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kaplan D, Lacetera N, Kaplan C. Sample size and precision in NIH peer review. PLoS One 2008 ; 3 : e2761. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pier EL, Brauer M, Filut A, et al. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018 ; 115 : 2952–2957. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fogelholm M, Leppinen S, Auvinen A, et al. Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals. J Clin Epidemiol 2012 ; 65 : 47–52. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Graves N, Barnett AG, Clarke P. Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ 2011 ; 343 : d4797. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Guthrie S, Ghiga I, Wooding S. What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? F1000Res 2017; 6 : 1335. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hallonsten O. Stop evaluating science: A historical-sociological argument. Social Science Information 2021; 60(1). [Google Scholar]
  15. Kwon D. Prestigious European grants might be biased, study suggests. Nature 2021; 593 : 490–1. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Pécresse V. Déclaration de Mme Valérie Pécresse pour le 5e anniversaire de l’Agence nationale de la Recherche (ANR). 2010. [Google Scholar]
  17. Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 1990 ; 263 : 1438–1441. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Campbell M. Francis Mojica: The Modest Microbiologist Who Discovered and Named CRISPR. Technology Networks Sudbury, UK2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lanoë M. The evaluation of competitive research funding : an application to French programs. Economics and Finance. Bordeaux: Université de Bordeaux, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson R, Watkinson A, Mabe M. The STM Report An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing The Netherlands 2018. [Google Scholar]
  21. Service CR. Global Research and Development Expenditures: Fact Sheet. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gordon R, Poulin BJ. Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant. Account Res 2009 ; 16 : 13–40. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Herbert DL, Barnett AG, Graves N. Funding: Australia’s grant system wastes time. Nature 2013 ; 495 : 314. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gordon R. A rough analysis of funding inequity in the Faculty of Medicine. University of Manitoba. Prairie Med J 1996 ; 66 : 131–132. [Google Scholar]
  25. Munafo MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav 2017 ; 1 : 0021. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gopalakrishna G, Ter Riet G, Vink G, et al. Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLoS One 2022; 17 : e0263023. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Fanelli D, Costas R, Lariviere V. Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish. Affect Scientific Integrity. PLoS One 2015 ; 10 : e0127556. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Smaldino PE, McElreath R. The natural selection of bad science. R Soc Open Sci 2016 ; 3 : 160384. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Bynum W. Nobel success: What makes a great lab?. Nature 2012 ; 490 : 31–32. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Wong ML. LMB Cambridge: Bureaucracy bypass let research flourish. Nature 2012 ; 490 : 487. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery. mBio 2016; 7 : e00422–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Bollen J, Crandall D, Junk D, et al. From funding agencies to scientific agency: Collective allocation of science funding as an alternative to peer review. EMBO Rep 2014 ; 15 : 131–133. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Collison P, Cowen T, Hsu P. What We Learned Doing Fast Grants. Future 2021. [Google Scholar]
  34. Bedessem B. Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer-review for the funding of science. Research Evaluation 2020; 29 : 150–7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Avin S. Mavericks and lotteries. Stud Hist Philos Sci 2019 ; 76 : 13–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014 ; 111 : 5773–5777. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Peifer M. Call to restore NIH’s cap on grant funding. Science 2017. [Google Scholar]
  38. Casadevall A, Fang FC. Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio 2014; 5 : e00064–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ziman J. Is science losing its objectivity?. Nature 1996 ; 382 : 751–754. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Union UaC. UK higher education. A workforce in crisis. London : University and College Union, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hazell CM, Berry C, Niven JE, Mackenzie J-M. Understanding suicidality and reasons for living amongst Doctoral Researchers: A thematic analysis of qualitative U-DOC survey data. Couns Psychother Res 2021; 21 : 757–67. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hall JC, Jeffrey C. Hall. Curr Biol 2008 ; 18 : R101–R102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Charlton BG. The cancer of bureaucracy: how it will destroy science, medicine, education; and eventually everything else. Med Hypotheses 2010 ; 74 : 961–965. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lazebnik Y. Are scientists a workforce? - Or, how Dr. Frankenstein made biomedical research sick: A proposed plan to rescue US biomedical research from its current ‘malaise’ will not be effective as it misdiagnoses the root cause of the disease. EMBO Rep 2015 ; 16 : 1592–1600. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Klein J. Hegemony of mediocrity in contemporary sciences, particularly in immunology. Lymphology 1985 ; 18 : 122–131. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Jordan B. CRISPR : le Nobel, enfin… Med Sci (Paris) 2021; 37 : 77–80. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Benoit L. Qui veut gagner des points SIGAPS ? Med Sci (Paris) 2022; 38 : 215–7. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.