Full author list:
@soerenkrach.bsky.social
@fmpaulus.bsky.social
Lena Rademacher,
all from @uniluebeck.bsky.social and
@rimamrahal.bsky.social from @univie.ac.at

While a pure lottery is often met with criticism, applicants were quite satisfied with this new mechanism of combining lottery and peer review, with about half of them favoring the lottery-first over the conventional approach.

Additionally, estimated overall costs for distributing the 50 million € where lower than 5 million €, while a conventional approach with a single peer review-step would have cost more than 13 million €.

Using data from the Freiraum-funding line of the German Foundation for innovation in higher education (stiftung-hochschullehre.de/en/) we now find evidence for that: An increased share in female applicants and grant awardees compared to a previously used procedure.

We also created a shiny app to calculate economic costs of funding procedures which you can try here: osi-luebeck.shinyapps.io/socostli/

We proposed this approach in a previous publication, arguing that it should reduce biases and economic costs of funding allocation. www.nature.com/articles/s41... (OA-Link: share.google/f53hLyN2bLLo...)

Great, thank you!

Thank you!

Hi Amanda, thank you for setting this up! Could you add me to the list as well?

Dear Florian, please add me to the list as well.