Many scientists struggle to understand why some grant applications succeed and others fail, perhaps explaining the online popularity of an article calling for increased transparency in the grant peer-review process. Writing in PLoS Biology, Daniel Mietchen, an evolutionary biologist at Berlin's Museum of Natural History, argues that, among other things, all successful proposals and their reviews should be released to the public. "Open science is now old hat; here's a call for open research funding processes," tweeted Dorothy Bishop, a neuropsychologist at the University of Oxford, UK. But some see a downside to transparency. James Johnson, a diabetes researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, tweeted: "I try to be open, but I've also had desperate people steal my ideas."
展开▼
