There are two ways in which you can avail, use and share your funds. You can either follow the wisdom of the crowd or follow the more conventional grant review process after proper research. No matter whichever way you choose, you must be aware of a few facts of funding, the current and upcoming regulatory measures and much more. This will ensure better funding, optimum utilization and serving your purpose as desired.
It is due to the changes in the money market scenario of the modern times that lawmakers and governments of different states and countries all over the world making amendments in the existing funding process and few are even readying a bill to assess universal elementary income.
The main objective of bringing these changes is to provide different families with a fixed stipend that needs it without having to go through huge reams of paperwork for proper assessment of eligibility.
It is thought that if there is a streamlined system of operation, then the allocation of resources will be fairer and more effective. It will be much less with bureaucratic bloat.
Goal of this system
To fund science or any other reasons, the same system can be applied to ensure that everyone who is qualified and eligible for funding receives it with a guarantee. Grants and funds are always required, but there should be something that will make it fair and judicious.
- There is one more step. This is to ensure that everyone who receives funding must allocate a fraction of it anonymously to other researchers of their choice. The primary goal of this system is to ensure proper allocation of funds and its desired use.
- According to research conducted by different universities, it is found that an estimate of at least a quarter of any funding program goes in preparing the different applications and necessary paperwork for the grants. If all the grants and funding of a year is collectively taken into account, then the amount of time spent for such preparation will come up to five centuries. This is not only surprising fact but is also alarming at the same time.
Therefore, the need for proper reviews cannot be overlooked as that will improve the quality of the projects for which the funding is actually made.
The cost of it
Now the question is at what cost such funding is made? To bring down the cost as well as the time factor, the scientific community is exploring newer and better ways to improve the process of reviewing the grants. Attempts are being now made to incorporate new evaluation systems or even a modified lottery for promising proposals. This will make the funding both transformative and viable.
However, nothing is free from the bureaucratic bloats and red tape which substantially shrinks the burden. At the rate in which current funding is going up, there is a dire need for a proper grant review system.
There are so many resources like https://www.libertylending.com/ and others from where one can get loans, benefits, and grants easily. It is therefore required by the researchers to continue spending more time on applying for grants, less specific outcomes and to reduce time in doing science.
Time for a radical change
It is now high time to try out something more radical and more effective and more result driven. The need for a crowd-based system to meet with the challenges is, therefore, ever rising. When this is said, scientists have already come up with such effective systems and tests are ongoing with several such advanced grants and funding review systems.
One such system that is creating a buzz is SOFA or Self Organizing Funding Allocation. It is being used to find out and explore other different alternative modes of funding. Experts agree that such systems should be well planned, well executed and must be large enough to last long and make the best possible evaluation of funding.
Features of SOFA
The reason that SOFA is considered to be good so far is for its features. According to the experts and their findings, it is said that SOFA has the following useful features:
- It allows every participant to start with the same allocation of funding every year
- It makes sure that a portion of this allocation is provided to others
- It provides different valid reasons to select someone for funding
- It works under the principle of ‘those who get the most give the most.’
- It makes the entire process anonymous and therefore avoids currying favor
- It makes sure that those who do not receive any donations still have their baseline
- It repeats the baseline and donation cycles every year
- It makes sure that the distribution of funding reflects community consensus
- It determines who deserves such finding
- It retains the assumption to the core of grant review
- It helps to extend the process to all instead of a small review panel and
- It ensures a stable source of funding for all researchers in early career.
However, efforts are on to develop it even more so that the grant programs can be targeted at other specific areas of research such as risky yet promising new topics and neglected diseases.
Build proper plans for precaution
Since people do not behave as always predicted (Remember Brexit vote?), it is important to free funding from the proposal risks of unleashing more racism, sexism, and able-ism. It will help in planning to build proper precautionary measures.
It will also help in limiting collisions of any kickback schemes which is a clear financial correspondent of citation cartels. This can be achieved by authorizing a minimum number of receivers and limiting people from defining frequent collaborators or associates in the same association.
It will help in counteracting gender, prestige and age biases that already plague predictable peer review.
Therefore, SOFA is a good review system for grants because it will make funding easier in the future. It is all due to the features of SOFA that provide with quantifiable data based on different parameters to tune distribution of funds according to chosen criteria.