3 ms·

For some reason Nature and Science never want to discuss the other side of peer review - not that involved publication of a paper, but that involved in acceptin

For some reason Nature and Science never want to discuss the other side of peer review - not that involved publication of a paper, but that involved in accepting or rejecting government or other institutional funding proposals. Let's say the NIH announces $1 billion in funding for cancer-related research - surely the system that distributes these funds is worth a little scrutiny, and it also involves peer review.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
robotresearcher 2y ago
Nature and Science regularly discuss these issues. For example, this article from this month: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03106-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03106-w
- photochemsyn 2y ago
  The vast majority of articles on peer review in Nature and Science only refer to journal publication, not funding distribution. Of course they're linked as a publication in Science or Nature helps greatly with the next round of funding applications by all accounts. It matters outside of academics because NIH funding distributions are linked to exclusive patents for pharmaceutical corporations, which represent a massive public subsidy for the pharma sector. This system also accounts for much of the price inflation in the medical drug markets in the USA, and a lack of research into medical uses of out-of-patent (cheap) drugs. See for example: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-07-nih-spent-950m-basic-patents.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-07-nih-spent-950m-basic-... > "The article in PLOS ONE titled, "NIH funding for patents that contribute to market exclusivity of drugs approved 2010–2019 and the public interest protections of Bayh-Dole," is the first to look broadly at the NIH funding for the basic and applied research related to new drug approvals and the proportion of this research that leads to patents that give manufacturers market exclusivity."
  - robotresearcher 2y ago
    Sure, it's an important area to discuss in public. I took issue with "never want to discuss", which is not accurate and easily refuted by example. You've backed off to "[not] vast majority of articles on peer review", which is accurate.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

robotresearcher 2y ago

Nature and Science regularly discuss these issues. For example, this article from this month: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03106-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03106-w

photochemsyn 2y ago
The vast majority of articles on peer review in Nature and Science only refer to journal publication, not funding distribution. Of course they're linked as a publication in Science or Nature helps greatly with the next round of funding applications by all accounts. It matters outside of academics because NIH funding distributions are linked to exclusive patents for pharmaceutical corporations, which represent a massive public subsidy for the pharma sector. This system also accounts for much of the price inflation in the medical drug markets in the USA, and a lack of research into medical uses of out-of-patent (cheap) drugs. See for example: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-07-nih-spent-950m-basic-patents.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-07-nih-spent-950m-basic-... > "The article in PLOS ONE titled, "NIH funding for patents that contribute to market exclusivity of drugs approved 2010–2019 and the public interest protections of Bayh-Dole," is the first to look broadly at the NIH funding for the basic and applied research related to new drug approvals and the proportion of this research that leads to patents that give manufacturers market exclusivity."
- robotresearcher 2y ago
  Sure, it's an important area to discuss in public. I took issue with "never want to discuss", which is not accurate and easily refuted by example. You've backed off to "[not] vast majority of articles on peer review", which is accurate.