Background

The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants.

Methods

This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application.

Results

The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (n = 79) in favour and 25% (n = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (n = 50) in favour and 37% (n = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application.

Conclusions

The Health Research Council’s experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.

中文翻译：

---

使用彩票分配研究经费的可接受性：对申请人的调查

背景

新西兰健康研究委员会是第一个使用彩票为其探索者资助计划分配研究资金的主要政府资助机构。这是一种颇有争议的方法，因为尽管有文献记录的同行评审存在问题，但许多研究人员认为，资金应该仅通过同行评审来分配，而同行评审几乎被世界各地的资助机构普遍使用。鉴于替代资助计划的稀有性，有兴趣听取第一批经历过彩票的研究人员的意见。此外，新西兰健康研究委员会希望从申请人那里了解随机化过程的可接受性和申请人的匿名性。

方法

本文介绍了 2013 年至 2019 年对健康研究委员会申请人的调查结果。该调查询问了使用抽签的可接受性，以及抽签是否意味着研究人员对其申请采取了不同的方法。

结果

总体回复率为 39%（325 份邀请中的 126 份），其中 30%（251 份中的 76 份）来自 2013 年至 2018 年的申请人，68%（74 份中的 50 份）来自 2019 年不知道的申请人资助结果。同意随机化是分配 Explorer Grant 资金的可接受方法，63% ( n = 79) 赞成，25% ( n = 32) 反对。对其他赠款类型随机分配资金的支持较少，只有 40% ( n = 50) 和 37% ( n= 46) 反对。在那些赢得资金的人中，对彩票的支持率更高。多位受访者表示，当不合格的申请被排除并资助未完成的申请时，他们支持抽签，以便其余申请真正平等。大多数申请人报告说，抽签并没有改变他们准备申请的时间。

结论

健康研究委员会通过 Explorer Grant 计划获得的经验支持进一步采用修改后的彩票。