The problem with #socialmedia #charity fund raising ...

The 10 problems which mean the process to allocate scientific funding is broken (ht @LSEImpactblog )

This post summarises the arguments put forward in Mathias Binswanger's "Excellence by Nonsense: The Competition for Publications in Modern Science" chapter in Opening Science's "The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing" edited by Sönke Bartling and Sascha Friesike. 

Obviously in creating this summary I have used some text from the original document and altered other text as I add my understanding of the arguments.

The full citation is at the bottom of this article along with links to other posts you may find useful. 

Hat tip for making me aware of the publication to a tweet from @LSEImpactblog

Summary

1) The peer review process for scientific articles is being "gamed" by reviewers and authors and has itself created some perverse incentives.

2) The ranking of an institution or universities excellence (based on number and quality of articles published and cited AND 3rd party funded projects AND networks with other institutions or universities) is also being "gamed".

3) The competitive system that allocates scientific funding (based on the ranking described in 2) and quality controlled by the process described in 1) - is also being "gamed" and so doesn't lead to the best allocation of funds to create real scientific progress.

4) The bureaucracy of this process is crowding out unconventional people who do not perform well in standardized competitions. 

5) The process often rejects ideas that later turn out to be scientific breakthroughs whilst rarely discovering plagiarism, fraud and deception.

6) It is also probably crowding out true quality and knowledge creation as it diverts more of scientist's time away from research and into reporting. 

7) In the past, researchers who had nothing to say at least did not publish.  Now they do and non-performance has been replaced by the performance of nonsense. 

8) All of this makes it increasingly difficult to find the truly interesting research in the mass of articles in publications.

9) Indeed the system is working against creating real scientific progress. Some disciplines have degenerated into a kind of theology where heresy is no longer tolerated in established scientific journals. 

10) It is doubtful whether Albert Einstein would be able to pursue a scientific career under the current system.

And in a bit more detail ...



Why scientists need to get published


1) To access funds universities compete with each other to get high rankings in terms of education and scientific research.


2) The way to impress those who distribute the funds is by increasing measurable output such as:

- number of articles published;

- number of times the article is cited in other articles (and the "quality" of such citations as determined by citation analysis);

- number of projects funded by third-party funds;

- number of networks with other institutes and universities.


3) The current system tries to ensure quality in articles by peer reviewing work before it is allowed to be published in professional journals.

(In peer review the journals give submitted manuscripts to one or several professors or other distinguished scientists - the so-called peers - who ideally work in the same field as the author and therefore should be able to assess the work’s quality. The theory behind this peer review is that reviewers do not know who the author of the article is, nor do the authors know who the reviewers are. At the end of the peer review process reviewers inform the editor in writing whether they plead for acceptance [very rare], revision, or rejection [most common] of the article submitted to the journal in question.  Top journals often pride themselves on high rejection rates - approximately 95% - which is seen as a reflection of the journal's quality).



The 7 realities of reviewers in scientific peer review 


Experts who peer review are busy human beings and so therefore their reviews:


1) are sometimes ghost written by their assistants;

2) are highly subjective (since the consensus of several expert judgements is usually low);

3) sometimes reject articles out of personal grudges (they rejected my article so....);

4) do reject articles that later turn out to be scientific breakthroughs;

5) rarely discover plagiarism, fraud and deception;

6) favour articles that are in accordance with their own work;

7) reject articles that contradict their own work.



The 12 behaviours this encourages in scientists who need to get published 


Given the points above potential authors seeking to get their articles published will often:


1) strategically cite and praise already published articles dealing with the same or similar topics which are likely to have been written by those doing the reviewing. (The critical debate on the peer-reviewed process discussed in the journal Nature in 2007 clearly showed that in practice the anonymity of the review process for established scientists is rare);

2) avoid criticizing the work of possible reviewers and those eminent in their field;

3) reveal successful tests and conceal negative results;

4) present simple ideas in complex ways to demonstrate the authors technical expertise and signal importance to the reader;

5) change the article according to the wishes of the reviewers;

6) cut up ideas into as minor ideas as possible (as each can be the subject of a separate article thus maximising the  number of articles that can be put forward to be published);

7) try to get the same results published twice or even more often than that;

8) ensure they are included as honourory authors in all articles from their research team (if they have power in the academic hierarchy to do so - as this increases the potential number of articles they can get published).  Interestingly actual research today rests largely on the shoulders of assistants and graduate students whose low hourly compensations still allow them to improve scientific knowledge. In contrast, opportunity costs of doing research are often too high for professors and research leaders, because they can contribute more to the measurable output of their institution by focusing on the organization and management of project acquisitions and publications. Yet due to honourory authorship the list of publications of professors and research leaders still grows despite their lack of continued research;

9) produce articles with several other authors  - as this approach, or indeed 8) above - increases the number of articles put forward for publication and also often increases the number of citations of such articles.  (the more authors an article has, the more all participating authors will be quoting this article again, especially if they are again involved as co-authors in another article);

10) specialize in a sub-division of a research discipline understood only by very few insiders, and establish a scientific journal  (to get published) for this topic;

11) create large cooperative and long-range projects with a network of as many research partners as possible, bringing third-party funds to their institution. (Large anonymous institutions like the EU give money to other large anonymous institutions  - e.g. an excellence cluster - where the individual researcher is crowded out and disappears to become a small wheel in a big research machine);

12) focus on application-oriented, "useful" research rather than " useless" basic research (this is because the competition for 3rd party funded projects drives scientists towards application oriented research as this rapidly leads to marketable innovations.  In this way, both humanities and basic research is gradually crowded out because in these disciplines immediate usability can hardly be shown or postulated)



4 consequences of all of this


1) the competitive system initiated to best allocate scientific funding has led to a steadily increasing number of published articles in scientific journals.  But this is often not leading to new or original scientific insights which create real scientific progress.


2) indeed some disciplines (e.g. economics) have degenerated into a kind of theology where heresy is no longer tolerated in established scientific journals.  Heresy takes place in books, working papers and a few marginal journals specializing in divergent theories, but these publications rarely contribute to the reputation of a scientist.  


3) In the past, researchers who had nothing to say at least did not publish. However the competitive system forces even uninspired and mediocre scientists to publish all the time. Non-performance has been replaced by the performance of nonsense and this makes it increasingly difficult to find the truly interesting research in the mass of insignificant publications.


4) The new bureaucracy and its competitive approach is crowding out unconventional people who do not perform well in standardized competitions.  It may also be crowding out true quality and knowledge creation as it diverts more of scientist's time away from research to reporting.  It is doubtful whether Albert Einstein would be able to pursue a scientific career under the current system.




Citation

The source material for this post is from Mathias Binswanger's "Excellence by Nonsense: The Competition for Publications in Modern Science" chapter in Opening Science's "The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing" edited by Sönke Bartling and Sascha Friesikeand and published under this Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC 3.0) licence - and found via a tweet from to @LSEImpactblog

other posts on RSA, TED, other lectures, conferences, others blog posts

2015

where does creativity come from? - a @RSAEvents lecture by mathematician @Cedric_Villani @alexbellos 
how to innovate & survive - by @markf212  (Mark Payne)

18 top tips and thoughts about using #social media to enable #community source = an article by  Anatoliy Gruzd PhD & Caroline Haythornthwaite PhD 

thinking straight in the age of information overload - by @danlevitin 

how to become a soulful organisation - by @fred_laloux 

2014

thoughts & headlines from a conference on social media and images 

Data Protection & Privacy - 8 issues from an International Conference

escape your social horizon limit & understand more - source = a blog post summarising the work of  Jeffrey A. Smith, Miller McPherson & Lynn Smith-Lovin

OECD - challenges for the next 50 years - in an OECD report 

Want to help somebody - shut up and listen - by ermesto sirolli 

social media & death - 10 things you may not have thought about - #DORS conference

persuasion and power in the modern world and the rise of soft power - UK House of Lords 

2013

UK Government Policy Blunders & their common causes - by Anthony King & Ivor Crewe

the development of the U2 spyplane - source = CIA historians Gregory Pedlow & Donald Welzenbach

Guide to Comments (esp. #YouTube) for creators - by @vihartvihart

considering culture and business process improvement  - source = an article by Schmiedel, Theresa, vom Brocke, Jan, & Recker 

ideas for your organisation from the 2013 99U conference 

ideas that may help you attract older volunteers - source = a paper by Brayley, Nadine, Obst, Patricia L., White, Katherine M., Lewis, Ioni M.,Warburton, Jeni, & Spencer, Nancy

physical factors which help people get better quicker - source = a paper by Salonen, Heidi & Morawska, Lidia 

a new approach to school and education - by Geetha Narayanan 

principles for software to encourage participation - by Gerhard Fischer

guiding principles on designing construction kits - by Mitchel Resnick & Brian Silverman

how to identify the #culture of an organisation

signs of overparenting - source = an article by Locke, Judith, Campbell, Marilyn A., & Kavanagh, David J

making ideas happen - source = a 99U conference

2012

how to spot a liar - by pamela myer 

the related world of cyber crime, warfare and industrial espionage - by @mishaglenny 

ambiguity, irreverence, commentary & judgement - by lauren zalaznick

measuring happiness - source = talk by jim clifton, jim harter, ben leedle

Church Commissioners' funds & inter-generational #equity - a summary of the #facts & #arguments in 16 short points

On Friday the above clip was posted along with a transcript, a tumblr post , a paper  and a discussion forum on the subject.

What follows is my summary of the paper in 16 shortish points.  At the foot of this post are links to my posts summarising all the other recently issued reports by the CofE, plus other related posts on CofE matters/conferences/stats.



Summary step through of the facts and arguments


The funding situation
1) In 2013 the Commissioners spent £208m (15% of the CofE's total spend). (annex para 6). 

2) Of this £122m was on pensions, £86m on non-pension costs (47% on supporting dioceses, 36% on bishops’ ministry and a further 11% supporting cathedral ministry) (annex para 6). 

3) £97m of the £208m was met from income, the balance from funds. (annex para 6). 

4) The Dioceses can't fund the proposals in the various papers.(para 2 page 2)

5) If the Commissioners pay for such they'd 'over-distribute' from their funds which pay for the spend in 2) above.(para 2 page 2)


Positives of a one off time limited Over-distribution
6) It helps generate church membership growth and local financial sustainability (annex para 21)

7) Thereby reducing the need for support from national funds in the long term. (para 39 pages 6&7).  

8) Over-distributing knowingly with precautions in place is a legitimate strategy.(para 41 page 7). 

9) A successful outcome, as a by-product, would be an increase in the Church’s financial strength. (para 4 page 1)

10) Such a one-off distribution would in principle be possible - subject to the Commissioners taking legal and actuary advice - without the need for further legislation (though legislation would be needed if new types of distribution - for example for clergy or lay training- were to be envisaged). (annex para 16 &18)


Negatives of Over-Distribution  

11) ‘Over- distribution’ means an irreversible reduction in the size of the funds (not tied up in pension) available in perpetuity to meet the costs of the living church. (annex para 4 & 20)

12) For every +'nal £100m spent the funds available for distribution (see 2) above) reduces by £2-3m p.a.(annex para 19).

13) ‘Bad’ over-distribution led to a severe financial crisis in the early 1990s. (para 5 page 1)

14) Over-distributing without understanding the consequences is a sure road to disaster. (para 5 page 1)

15) If we over-distribute the risk is that instead of having a substantial endowment and few members - the Church might have neither. (annex para 21)


Conclusion
16) Andreas Whittam Smith therefore welcomes comment from Synod on the proposals and precautions he shall outline in the debate. (it isn't clear to me if these precautions are in addition to those discussed in the paper) (para 41 page 7)



Some Background information


1) For more than 20 now the Commissioners have adopted a rigid policy of distributing only such sums that will enable the value of the endowment to be maintained in real terms through time. In so doing they have observed the principle of inter-generational equity. (para 10 page 2).  

2) They have achieved investment returns in excess of their target return of RPI plus 5% consistently over the last 20 years. This, plus a prudent distribution regime informed by independent actuarial advice, means the investment portfolio at the end of 2013 was some £6 billion. (If they'd only managed to keep pace with inflation it would be 1/2 of this). (para 36 page 6)

3) As the Commissioners are not encumbered with any borrowing and have been growing the value of the portfolio at a rate faster than simply maintaining it's real value ....SO financial support to the Church is greater than would otherwise have been the case had it merely kept pace with inflation. (para 38 page 6)

4) The highly diversified investment portfolio has shown itself resilient during recent economic turmoil. It has been able to maintain its level of distribution to the Church, in particular its support for poorer dioceses, and more recently for mission and development opportunities. (para 37 page 6)

5) Around £2 billion of the £6 billion is required to extinguish the pension obligation over the next 60 years. (annex para 2).  The actuaries advice is there will not be any increase in money available for non-pension purposes once the pension liabilities have been met.  (annex para 3)

6) The report sets out the key lessons learnt from previous mistakes:

- from 1974 onwards, over-distribution became a habit and the additional spending was targeted on recurring costs (stipends, pensions etc.), which could not be cut back when things turned sour;

- there was an over concentration of assets (Commercial property ='d 38% of assets and itself was made up of a small number of large schemes);

- The decision to borrow exacerbated the risks. Moreover interest rates doubled to 10% so in 1991 loan repayment spend was almost as much as stipends or pensions.  (para 35 page 6)

7) If over distribution were chosen there would be important questions to address over:

- The scale of the money released (if a special distribution is to be made it has to be sufficient to make a difference);

- For what purposes it was to be used and;

- How to distribute funding in such a way as to avoid a ‘boom and bust’ culture or to create dependency. The profile and purpose of the spending would need to be shaped to avoid long-term operational funding commitments and to build long-term sustainability. (annex para 22)

8) And any such distribution would need to be tightly governed, in particular to ensure the
additional monies are being properly directed towards the change programme and
are not being mopped up by ‘business as usual’ activity.  (annex para 23)

Related CofE Posts

CofE Discerning & nurturing paper - with Green Report attached - from January 2015

Church Commissioners' funds and inter-generational equity - from January 2015

CofE Resourcing the Future - from January 2015

CofE Resourcing Ministerial Education - from January 2015

CofE Simplification paper - from January 2015

CofE Developing Discipleship paper - from January 2015

“In Each Generation” : A programme for reform and renewal - from January 2015

The Green Report - on CofE talent management - from December 2014

CofE typos in services - a compilation of a @OurCofE twitter hashtag - from December 2014

CofE 2013 mission stats - from November 2014

Household of faith conference - one of several posts summarising - from July 2014

CofE Strategies - one of several posts summarising - from June/July 2014

Role of church in society conference - from June 2014

CofE church growth research conference - from January 2014

funding and christian distinctiveness