1The transformative nature of transparency in research funding

In this issue, Gurwitz et al. [1] (subsequently GMK) report on a survey of transparency at major funders of biomedical research. They looked at what information funders make public about assessment procedures and funded proposals, as detailed in their Table 1. On that basis, GMK then discuss the merits of adding transparency to the proposal review process in one of two ways: in what they refer to as the “incremental ” approach, individual components of the process would be made more open. Focusing on components that “should not do any harm on the evaluation procedure at all”, they suggest that funders publish 1. (once funding decisions have been announced for a call) a list of the members of that call’s review panels, along with a cumulative list of external reviewers 2. statements within the application about the expected impact of the proposed research 3. the final reports of funded projects The second approach – termed the “radical ” one – is about opening up the review process as a whole, rather than selected parts thereof. The authors provide some practical considerations as to why that might be useful: • it addresses reviewer fatigu