J Unf Gr Prop

Brilliant! I'm all over this.

let me also suggest that NIH provide a special designation for the top 20% applications that do not get funded: M20 (for meritorious, 20%), M10 (for meritorious, 10%), etc. that the investigator gets to use in his/her vitae.

And I'll go one better.

The Journal of Unfunded Grant Proposals.

They've already been peer reviewed! At least for NIH grants, they even come with a score. If you really wanted to be pedantic we could require the author to submit the summary statement.

Think of it! All that hard work turning into something productive. And the *priority* of your ideas is preserved. If anyone gets funded later, you get to claim it was all your idea in the first place!

Unleash your enthusiasm!

23 responses so far

  • The investigator already gets to put her scores and percentiles in her CV if she feels like it. Who's gonna stop her?

  • Candid Engineer says:

    I love the way you this verbs around, DM. Pitter patter.

  • juniorprof says:

    i think this is an awesome idea... from a historical perspective, don't you think it would be interesting to look back at grant idea trends and see what happened to certain areas over 10 or 20 years.

  • HAHAHAHAH! I didn't even notice until you pointed it out!

  • drugmonkey says:

    Would we need a quality cutoff? Reject anything with an average criterion score of 7 or worse for Appproach?

  • NO! The opposite! Reject anything with an average criterion score of 7 or *better* for Approach! Otherwise it's just gonna be the same shitte that gets funded. I wanna see some seriously wacked out shitte I can't find on ProjectReporter!

  • drugmonkey says:

    That goes in Acta Scandinavica Propositus, PP....

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    You are such a troll.

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    BTW, why does my avatar look like a cock and balls?

  • drugmonkey says:

    It looks like something from an old skoole video game to me. I dunno what your iss is?

  • becca says:

    Humble suggestions for what should happen with unfunded grants:
    1) they go to a public database where people can opt to contribute to them directly
    2) they go into a "last chance" lottery funded by taxes on soda
    3) the figures get put into FigShare
    4) the whole thing gets published in your JUGP (I am finding that acronym curiously entertaining); which I presume will be Open Access and therefore subject to post-publication peer review as well
    5) #bobchickenshit uses them to teach classes on how NOT to get funded

  • qaz says:

    Would a lot of "M10"s and "M20s" but little funding be a bad thing? Because your hit rate is really low? Like a batter that keeps hitting fly balls just short of a home run?

  • Pinko Punko says:

    The back page could be a lowest score in the section grant- a special honor. The caboose of the journal!

  • WhizBANG! says:

    "Warning track power"

  • daedalus2u says:

    I think this is a good idea. Then 20 years later we can see how badly the current practice of chasing only the most fashionable science slows things down.

  • BikeMonkey says:

    daedalus2u, my man, you have an excellent point. It would be awesome to have a comprehensive record of unfunded submissions on various topics to look at who was ahead of her time but couldn't convince the panels, what trends led to an avalanche of funded proposals, when a given topic reached saturation point....

  • juniorprof says:

    sure, its a great idea when daedalus says it but not when juniorprof mentions the same thing upthread :-)

  • Pinko Punko says:

    jp's comment was ahead of its time, proving daedalus2u's point, henceforth known as "Daedayus2u's Postulate"- poor jp, because the prizes and lucre will shower down on d2u while one day jp's reputation will be resurrected in a sadly posthumous biography. Smile down on your future glory from heaven, juniorprof.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Alfred Russel Juniorprof

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    I've looked all through out this thread and mine is the only one that looks like a cock and balls. I call shenanigans.

  • becca says:

    Remember how much fun those Ngrams on google books were? The sheer grantgeekery power to be unleashed is vast.

  • Funky Fresh says:

    I hear people give bad scores when their NO is low.

Leave a Reply