As far as risks are concerned, there seems to be a consensus view on general funding strategies from different funders: government funding agencies tend to fund low-risk proposals while private foundations, at least in principle, should fund more of those so-called high-risk high-reward projects. Unfortunately, these high-risk high-reward funding programs, in their actual practice, often utilize similar measures that have been applied for funding main-stream or low-risk projects. Here, an improved review procedure for such programs will be tentatively proposed, which will be easy to implement and meanwhile biased properly toward high-risk, potentially paradigm-shifting proposals.
English backup of my blog at wanpengtan.com. Topics include open science and new physics of mirror matter theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
A possible solution to arbitrary evaluations
My letter to Physics Today was just published in its issue in October, 2024 . Hopefully, it’ll draw attention from a wider audience to the i...
-
My letter to Physics Today was just published in its issue in October, 2024 . Hopefully, it’ll draw attention from a wider audience to the i...
-
Based on the earlier paper “ A Robust Community-Based Credit System to Enhance Peer Review in Scientific Research “, we will present more qu...
-
My paper titled “ New pairing mechanism via chiral electron–hole condensation for non-BCS superconductivity ” has just been accepted for pub...