Why social scientists still need phenomenology

Why we still need grant peer review.

B ollen et al [1] propose a novel mechanism for allocating research funds that first distributes all available funds equally among all practising scientists and then requires them to transfer a portion of their annual funds to other scientists of their choice. This distributed mechanism, the authors suggest, will substantially reduce the cost of funding allocation, by making proposal drafting a...

why we still need hbv population-based epidemiologic studies

Why We Still Need HBV Population-Based Epidemiologic Studies

DOI: 10.5812/hepatmon.842 Copyright c 2012 Kowsar M.P.Co. All rights reserved. Implication for health policy/practice/research/medical education: Hepatitis B is a common viral disease that highly appears among high risk groups. Therefore, study of this article is recommended to the epidemiologists, hepatologists, virologists and other researchers who are interested in the field of public health.

Why we still need randomized trials to compare effectiveness.

Over the past 20 years, there have been 12 randomized trials in which the revascularization strategies of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been compared, against the background of advances in both fields. Percutaneous treatment of multiple vessels has become more feasible, more durable, and more common, and yet the most contemporary random...

Response: "Why we still need grant peer review".

W hile we welcome a discussion on the merits and demerits of possible funding systems, we fundamentally disagree with Avin’s comments. His letter is entitled “Why we still need grant peer review”, but it does not actually make a case for grant peer review. It merely criticizes our proposal in the abstract. Avin is mistaken about a number of points: 1 Of course an ideal funding system must be as...