Hartmann: And a few days ago, the Board of Trustees agreed that we should try out a distributed peer review process. This means that applicants become reviewers at the same time. Other funders have already gained experience with this. In context of the review process, we also hope to gain insights from our participation in the Research on Research Institute (RoRi ). For example, from the working group on "The Future of Peer Review," in which the Foundation participates. Another question I think we urgently need to address is how AI tools might contribute towards changes in the peer review process?
What insights do you hope to gain from the "additional funding for reviewers" experiment?
Danisman: We are, of course, interested in how the grantees would spend the 10,000 euros. If patterns emerge here, this could also have a structural impact on the Foundation's funding activities. We are also curious to see whether this incentive helps to bind reviewers more closely to the Foundation. And finally, we are curious to see how other actors in the science system will react to our idea. All the experiments we venture into are carefully evaluated, often with accompanying research. It is part of our funding strategy to generate fresh impetus in the science system and to promote structural change.
Hartmann: The willingness to experiment is a strategic feature of our funding activities. Here, our independence sets us apart from other, mainly public, funding organizations and gives us more leeway to try out unusual things. We are happy to accept that an experiment may not turn out to be as successful as we had hoped. However, in all modesty, this happens very, very rarely.