EDP Sciences logo
Authentification abonné
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 39 / Numéro 2 (Février 2023) Med Sci (Paris), 39 2 (2023) 170-176 Références
Accès gratuit
Numéro
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 39, Numéro 2, Février 2023
Page(s) 170 - 176
Section Repères
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2023004
Publié en ligne 17 février 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]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.