Median Watch

Eyes on statistics

Experimenting with peer review

RORI’s interesting report on the future of peer review noted a lack of cross-over of ideas between peer review in funding and peer review in journals. Having worked on both, I have ideas. Lotteries for journals Conditional lotteries are becoming popular with funders. After we were publicly made fun of for suggesting them with the Australian NHMRC in 2015, they are now all over the world. They are popular because they reduce biases, save time, and appear to increase diversity.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Sunday, July 12, 2026

Beating the panel drum

There’s been another call to “Bring back panels!” for the NHMRC, this time published in Science. These calls normally appear on social media on the day of major funding announcements, when the majority of people find out that they’ve been unsuccessful and vent their frustrations. There are some scientists who, when their applications are rejected, don’t consider that it was bad luck or that there’s some flaw in their ideas. Instead, they conclude that the system must be wrong and therefore must be changed.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Tuesday, June 2, 2026

Research Grant System Teeters on the Cusp of an AI Hellscape

Reproduced from Future Campus.

Last week, I blocked out two hours of protected time in my diary for “grant writing”. I’ve done this before, but the difference this time was that at the end of two hours I had a nearly finished NHMRC Ideas Grant. Of course I used AI. I used PRISM, a new free tool from OpenAI designed for academic writing. I gave PRISM the Ideas Grant criteria, a document on what makes a good application, and a title and an aim.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Monday, March 30, 2026

Funding schemes that cost more than they award: part 2

“What is the purpose of research funding?” Phew, that is a big question. If I could hear your answers, I am sure there would be a wide range of opinions. Let’s put that in the too hard basket. What about this question, “What should research funding not do?" Again, I can imagine lots of answers, but there are likely some answers that we could all agree on. How about an axiom that “A research funding scheme should never cost more than it awards.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Wednesday, February 5, 2025

Scientific fraud is rising, and automated systems won’t stop it. We need research detectives

Reposted from The Conversation. Fraud in science is alarmingly common. Sometimes researchers lie about results and invent data to win funding and prestige. Other times, researchers might pay to stage and publish entirely bogus studies to win an undeserved pay rise – fuelling a “paper mill” industry worth an estimated €1 billion a year. Some of this rubbish can be easily spotted by peer reviewers, but the peer review system has become badly stretched by ever-rising paper numbers.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Friday, June 23, 2023