Openness pledge in relation to grant review?

+4 votes
asked Dec 6, 2015 in Open Science by Daniel Mietchen (1,215 points)
edited Dec 7, 2015 by Daniel Mietchen

There have been multiple initiatives around pledges not to review publications destined for paywalls or failing in some other measures of openness, but I am not aware of any initiative or pledge targeted at openness in grant review - pointers much appreciated.

What I have in mind here is basically to adapt my open-access pledge to include grant review, and I see two major ways of doing this:

  1. reviewing only grant proposals that are public (or perhaps will be made so within some short time frame)
  2. reviewing only if I can publish my review (perhaps with some short delay/ embargo)

Option 1 would focus on openness on the part of proposal authors, while exposing funders to this increased openness, whereas option 2 would focus on making the funder's workflows more open, while exposing proposal authors to the idea of such openness.

I am currently inclined more towards option 2 and am inviting your suggestions on how best to phrase this out, or how to deal with the issue more generally.

In order to make the resulting pledge text maximally shareable, I'm planning to put it under CC0, so please be prepared to do the same for your contributions to it.

commented Dec 6, 2015 by Dilaton (100 points)
Could both options be included into the pledge?
They seem both very reasonable to me  and are not mutually exlusive if I understand them correctly ...

Please log in or register to answer this question.

Welcome to Open Science Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.

If you participated in the Open Science beta at StackExchange, please reclaim your user account now – it's already here!

e-mail the webmaster