This post is both a follow up to last week’s post on the cost’s of peer review and a response to Duncan Hull’s post of nine or so months ago proposing a game of “Fantasy Science Funding”. The game requires you to describe how you would distribute the funding of the BBSRC if you were a benign (or not so benign) dictator. The post and the discussion should be read bearing in mind my standard disclaimer. Peer review is in crisis.

Another post prompted by an exchange of comments on Neil Saunder’s blog. The discussion here started about the somewhat arbitrary nature of what does and does not get counted as ‘worthy contributions’ in the research community.