Difference between revisions of "Resource:A6bae807-a521-46c4-a7ba-79c1fe163421"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=Changing a grant proposal to meet the reviewers requests |
| − | |Is About=This fictional case is about | + | |Is About=This fictional case is about an Associate Professor. She submitted a proposal which received a score too low to be funded. She is wondering what she should do now, because she is certain that her method will work. |
|Important Because=The current peer review system may not work positive for everybody. It is important how to react when your proposal as a researcher is rejected for funding without deception. | |Important Because=The current peer review system may not work positive for everybody. It is important how to react when your proposal as a researcher is rejected for funding without deception. | ||
| − | + | |Important For=Researchers; Funders; Peer reviewers | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-two-getting-fair-shake | |Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-two-getting-fair-shake | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability | + | |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty |
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Communication; Research methods | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Communication; Research methods | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:26, 22 October 2020
ResourcesCases
Changing a grant proposal to meet the reviewers requests
What is this about?
This fictional case is about an Associate Professor. She submitted a proposal which received a score too low to be funded. She is wondering what she should do now, because she is certain that her method will work.
Why is this important?
The current peer review system may not work positive for everybody. It is important how to react when your proposal as a researcher is rejected for funding without deception.
