The bold idea of random grant allocation is heatedly discussed as an alternative to peer review. The debate centers on advantages and disadvantages of the established measures to control scientific quality, compared to funding by chance. Recently, studies also investigated acceptance of lotteries in the scientific field. However, they provide only inconclusive findings due to their restricted scope. This paper examines scientists’ views on current funding conditions and the idea of random grant distribution. An online survey of PhD holders reveals that most participants are against pure randomness, although they would try random elements if such procedures were combined with peer review. Moreover, while fewer established and recognized scientists differ in their assessments of peer review and expectancies on lotteries’ impact, they hardly vary in their positions on random elements. Funding organizations therefore should be encouraged to further experiment with, and closely examine, practiced lotteries.

中文翻译：

---

研究经费随机分配？科学家对同行评审和彩票的看法调查

随机拨款分配的大胆想法被热烈讨论为同行评审的替代方案。与偶然资助相比，辩论集中在控制科学质量的既定措施的优缺点上。最近，研究还调查了科学领域对彩票的接受度。但是，由于范围有限，它们仅提供了不确定的发现。本文探讨了科学家对当前资助条件和随机拨款分配理念的看法。一项针对博士生的在线调查显示，大多数参与者反对纯粹的随机性，尽管如果将此类程序与同行评审相结合，他们会尝试随机元素。此外，虽然较少的知名科学家在同行评审和彩票影响预期方面存在差异，他们在随机元素上的立场几乎没有什么不同。因此，应鼓励资助组织进一步试验并仔细检查已实践的彩票。