Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3 C5963719!5963719!29795961     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Scientometrics 2017 ; 110 (1): 521-8 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=29795961|t=2017. An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions |pdf=|usr=}}{{29795961}} gab.com Text An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions JO: Scientometrics http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29795961 #FOAvip This paper presents a novel model of science funding that exploits the wisdom of the scientific crowd. Each researcher receives an equal, unconditional part of all available science funding on a yearly basis, but is required to individually donate to other scientists a given fraction of all they receive. Science funding thus moves from one scientist to the next in such a way that scientists who receive many donations must also redistribute the most. As the funding circulates through the scientific community it is mathematically expected to converge on a funding distribution favored by the entire scientific community. This is achieved without any proposal submissions or reviews. The model furthermore funds scientists instead of projects, reducing much of the overhead and bias of the present grant peer review system. Model validation using large-scale citation data and funding records over the past 20 years show that the proposed model could yield funding distributions that are similar to those of the NSF and NIH, and the model could potentially be more fair and more equitable. We discuss possible extensions of this approach as well as science policy implications. Twit Text FOAVip An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions ????Scientometrics http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29795961 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29795961 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|29795961}}</ref> An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions #MMPMID29795961 Bollen J; Crandall D; Junk D; Ding Y; Börner K Scientometrics 2017[Jan]; 110 (1): 521-8 PMID29795961show ga This paper presents a novel model of science funding that exploits the wisdom of the scientific crowd. Each researcher receives an equal, unconditional part of all available science funding on a yearly basis, but is required to individually donate to other scientists a given fraction of all they receive. Science funding thus moves from one scientist to the next in such a way that scientists who receive many donations must also redistribute the most. As the funding circulates through the scientific community it is mathematically expected to converge on a funding distribution favored by the entire scientific community. This is achieved without any proposal submissions or reviews. The model furthermore funds scientists instead of projects, reducing much of the overhead and bias of the present grant peer review system. Model validation using large-scale citation data and funding records over the past 20 years show that the proposed model could yield funding distributions that are similar to those of the NSF and NIH, and the model could potentially be more fair and more equitable. We discuss possible extensions of this approach as well as science policy implications. äAn efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-p(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing