Grant defence

September 28, 2007

Christian Fleck faults the European Research Council on many counts, the main one being the great number of applications and the small ratio of success ("Grant contest proves ill-conceived lottery", September 7). There were more applications than expected, so what? What are the alternatives? To lower standards to have more winners?

The ERC chose to reinforce the selection process with external evaluators. Each project was assessed by four independent evaluators and two positives led to a full panel discussion. True, the best projects came from strong countries and centres. This can be dealt with (the report of my panel signalled this) but not when you have to judge only the scientific quality of projects and researchers.

Fleck sneers at the fact that survivors had to resubmit "within a matter of weeks", but this is an appropriate length of time for redrafting a good research project.

It is also questionable that the large number of rejections is a waste. These should not be regarded as failures, but as an important resource of a network of young, talented scholars to whom the ERC will dedicate a great deal of attention, including ways to reduce contextual biases without lowering quality.

Guido Martinotti
Chair, Panel SH2 Institutions, behaviour, values and beliefs

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments

评论最多

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October