Grant review needs reform. How about we add an element of chance?
A process that uses a lottery system saves time, reduces strategic resubmission and accepts that, above a quality threshold, luck has always played a part in science funding.
In the world of scientific grant funding, a lottery-based review process could save time and resources, according to researchers. Currently, the process of reviewing grant applications can be lengthy and arbitrary, especially for mid-quality proposals. Some communities have already adopted lottery systems, such as in New Zealand, Switzerland, and Germany, where they have been well-received.
A lottery system could make funding more equitable, as demonstrated by the German program, where it led to an increase in the share of women among both applicants and funded researchers. However, implementing such a system requires testing and evaluation on a small scale before broad adoption. In Quebec, researchers Nadia Gosselin and the author from the Université de Montréal tested a lottery system for their Quebec Sleep Research Network.
Instead of lengthy discussions, each reviewer gave a "pass" or "fail" based on explicit criteria, and successful grants entered a lottery. Reviewers could also flag an application as "unmissable," bypassing the lottery. This method reduced the review time to less than an hour and satisfied all parties involved. The researchers are planning to study the 2026 call further, optimizing the system by not carrying over older proposals and automatically rerouting approved but non-selected proposals.
While not perfect, the lottery system has received positive feedback from the community, and the researchers plan to survey reviewers on fairness, time savings, and the fear of small scoring differences impacting applicants.
Written by urgent.news from The Transmitter's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
