Sorry to Nicanor. In my case, while some the reviewer comments were reasonable, one reviewer was ridiculously nitpicky to the point of bias. Like a game of whack a mole. You take care of one concern, and they bring up another. As usual, $ begets $. While we struggle for a lack of funding.
“…early funding success introduces a growing rift, with winners just above the funding threshold accumulating more than twice as much research funding (€180,000) during the following eight years as nonwinners just below it.”
In Canada, the brief change to awarding a few with huge grants to capture star scientists exacerbated the Matthew effect. Funds are evermore concentrated in just a few places. Discovery is best achieved by funding as large and regionally diverse collection of scientist from across the country.
Comments
“…early funding success introduces a growing rift, with winners just above the funding threshold accumulating more than twice as much research funding (€180,000) during the following eight years as nonwinners just below it.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1719557115