Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study View Full Text


Ontology type: schema:ScholarlyArticle      Open Access: True


Article Info

DATE

2017-09-15

AUTHORS

Adrian G. Barnett, Philip Clarke, Cedryck Vaquette, Nicholas Graves

ABSTRACT

Background: Winning funding for health and medical research usually involves a lengthy application process. With success rates under 20%, much of the time spent by 80% of applicants could have been better used on actual research. An alternative funding system that could save time is using democracy to award the most deserving researchers based on votes from the research community. We aimed to pilot how such a system could work and examine some potential biases. Methods: We used an online survey with a convenience sample of Australian researchers. Researchers were asked to name the 10 scientists currently working in Australia that they thought most deserved funding for future research. For comparison, we used recent winners from large national fellowship schemes that used traditional peer review. Results: Voting took a median of 5 min (inter-quartile range 3 to 10 min). Extrapolating to a national voting scheme, we estimate 599 working days of voting time (95% CI 490 to 728), compared with 827 working days for the current peer review system for fellowships. The gender ratio in the votes was a more equal 45:55 (female to male) compared with 34:66 in recent fellowship winners, although this could be explained by Simpson's paradox. Voters were biased towards their own institution, with an additional 1.6 votes per ballot (inter-quartile range 0.8 to 2.2) above the expected number. Respondents raised many concerns about the idea of using democracy to fund research, including vote rigging, lobbying and it becoming a popularity contest. Conclusions: This is a preliminary study of using voting that does not investigate many of the concerns about how a voting system would work. We were able to show that voting would take less time than traditional peer review and would spread the workload over many more reviewers. Further studies of alternative funding systems are needed as well as a wide discussion with the research community about potential changes. More... »

PAGES

16

References to SciGraph publications

  • 2015. Funding Science by Lottery in RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: EPSA13 HELSINKI
  • 2013-06-07. Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities in BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
  • 2016-09-03. An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions in SCIENTOMETRICS
  • 2016-04-19. Peer review: Troubled from the start in NATURE
  • 2016-02-10. Does it take too long to publish research? in NATURE
  • 2011-09-28. Fund people not projects in NATURE
  • Identifiers

    URI

    http://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0

    DOI

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0

    DIMENSIONS

    https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1090763393

    PUBMED

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29451532


    Indexing Status Check whether this publication has been indexed by Scopus and Web Of Science using the SN Indexing Status Tool
    Incoming Citations Browse incoming citations for this publication using opencitations.net

    JSON-LD is the canonical representation for SciGraph data.

    TIP: You can open this SciGraph record using an external JSON-LD service: JSON-LD Playground Google SDTT

    [
      {
        "@context": "https://springernature.github.io/scigraph/jsonld/sgcontext.json", 
        "about": [
          {
            "id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/22", 
            "inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/", 
            "name": "Philosophy and Religious Studies", 
            "type": "DefinedTerm"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/2201", 
            "inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/", 
            "name": "Applied Ethics", 
            "type": "DefinedTerm"
          }
        ], 
        "author": [
          {
            "affiliation": {
              "alternateName": "Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059 Australia", 
              "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.1024.7", 
              "name": [
                "Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059 Australia"
              ], 
              "type": "Organization"
            }, 
            "familyName": "Barnett", 
            "givenName": "Adrian G.", 
            "id": "sg:person.012524527342.78", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.012524527342.78"
            ], 
            "type": "Person"
          }, 
          {
            "affiliation": {
              "alternateName": "Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC Australia", 
              "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.1008.9", 
              "name": [
                "Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC Australia"
              ], 
              "type": "Organization"
            }, 
            "familyName": "Clarke", 
            "givenName": "Philip", 
            "id": "sg:person.0734456474.38", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0734456474.38"
            ], 
            "type": "Person"
          }, 
          {
            "affiliation": {
              "alternateName": "Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059 Australia", 
              "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.1024.7", 
              "name": [
                "Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059 Australia"
              ], 
              "type": "Organization"
            }, 
            "familyName": "Vaquette", 
            "givenName": "Cedryck", 
            "id": "sg:person.0701263035.55", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0701263035.55"
            ], 
            "type": "Person"
          }, 
          {
            "affiliation": {
              "alternateName": "Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059 Australia", 
              "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.1024.7", 
              "name": [
                "Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059 Australia"
              ], 
              "type": "Organization"
            }, 
            "familyName": "Graves", 
            "givenName": "Nicholas", 
            "id": "sg:person.01213532104.16", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.01213532104.16"
            ], 
            "type": "Person"
          }
        ], 
        "citation": [
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1015444704", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1046537509", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1038/530148a", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1035548674", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1038/530148a"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1186/1471-2288-13-74", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1045430318", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-74"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1038/477529a", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1012262643", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1038/477529a"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1038/532306a", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1010168151", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }
        ], 
        "datePublished": "2017-09-15", 
        "datePublishedReg": "2017-09-15", 
        "description": "Background: Winning funding for health and medical research usually involves a lengthy application process. With success rates under 20%, much of the time spent by 80% of applicants could have been better used on actual research. An alternative funding system that could save time is using democracy to award the most deserving researchers based on votes from the research community. We aimed to pilot how such a system could work and examine some potential biases.\nMethods: We used an online survey with a convenience sample of Australian researchers. Researchers were asked to name the 10 scientists currently working in Australia that they thought most deserved funding for future research. For comparison, we used recent winners from large national fellowship schemes that used traditional peer review.\nResults: Voting took a median of 5\u00a0min (inter-quartile range 3 to 10\u00a0min). Extrapolating to a national voting scheme, we estimate 599 working days of voting time (95% CI 490 to 728), compared with 827 working days for the current peer review system for fellowships. The gender ratio in the votes was a more equal 45:55 (female to male) compared with 34:66 in recent fellowship winners, although this could be explained by Simpson's paradox. Voters were biased towards their own institution, with an additional 1.6 votes per ballot (inter-quartile range 0.8 to 2.2) above the expected number. Respondents raised many concerns about the idea of using democracy to fund research, including vote rigging, lobbying and it becoming a popularity contest.\nConclusions: This is a preliminary study of using voting that does not investigate many of the concerns about how a voting system would work. We were able to show that voting would take less time than traditional peer review and would spread the workload over many more reviewers. Further studies of alternative funding systems are needed as well as a wide discussion with the research community about potential changes.", 
        "genre": "article", 
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0", 
        "inLanguage": "en", 
        "isAccessibleForFree": true, 
        "isFundedItemOf": [
          {
            "id": "sg:grant.7878690", 
            "type": "MonetaryGrant"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:grant.7878109", 
            "type": "MonetaryGrant"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:grant.7877105", 
            "type": "MonetaryGrant"
          }
        ], 
        "isPartOf": [
          {
            "id": "sg:journal.1053067", 
            "issn": [
              "2058-8615"
            ], 
            "name": "Research Integrity and Peer Review", 
            "publisher": "Springer Nature", 
            "type": "Periodical"
          }, 
          {
            "issueNumber": "1", 
            "type": "PublicationIssue"
          }, 
          {
            "type": "PublicationVolume", 
            "volumeNumber": "2"
          }
        ], 
        "keywords": [
          "funding system", 
          "fund research", 
          "funding", 
          "voting", 
          "popularity contest", 
          "winners", 
          "voting time", 
          "vote", 
          "research funding", 
          "democracy", 
          "potential biases", 
          "lobbying", 
          "voters", 
          "voting system", 
          "review system", 
          "Simpson's paradox", 
          "paradox", 
          "Fellowship Scheme", 
          "institutions", 
          "wider discussion", 
          "future research", 
          "applicants", 
          "rigging", 
          "observational study", 
          "research", 
          "ballot", 
          "contest", 
          "actual research", 
          "researchers", 
          "biases", 
          "convenience sample", 
          "voting scheme", 
          "gender ratio", 
          "concern", 
          "success rate", 
          "peer review", 
          "own institution", 
          "Further studies", 
          "survey", 
          "respondents", 
          "more reviewers", 
          "potential changes", 
          "Australia", 
          "Australian researchers", 
          "days", 
          "peer review system", 
          "preliminary study", 
          "online survey", 
          "discussion", 
          "medical research", 
          "scheme", 
          "review", 
          "median", 
          "idea", 
          "study", 
          "health", 
          "rate", 
          "time", 
          "reviewers", 
          "changes", 
          "application process", 
          "system", 
          "community", 
          "scientists", 
          "less time", 
          "min", 
          "traditional peer review", 
          "research community", 
          "fellowship", 
          "number", 
          "process", 
          "alternative funding systems", 
          "samples", 
          "comparison", 
          "ratio", 
          "workload", 
          "vote rigging", 
          "recent winners", 
          "current peer review system", 
          "lengthy application process", 
          "deserving researchers", 
          "large national fellowship schemes", 
          "national fellowship schemes", 
          "national voting scheme", 
          "recent fellowship winners", 
          "fellowship winners"
        ], 
        "name": "Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study", 
        "pagination": "16", 
        "productId": [
          {
            "name": "dimensions_id", 
            "type": "PropertyValue", 
            "value": [
              "pub.1090763393"
            ]
          }, 
          {
            "name": "doi", 
            "type": "PropertyValue", 
            "value": [
              "10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0"
            ]
          }, 
          {
            "name": "pubmed_id", 
            "type": "PropertyValue", 
            "value": [
              "29451532"
            ]
          }
        ], 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0", 
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1090763393"
        ], 
        "sdDataset": "articles", 
        "sdDatePublished": "2022-01-01T18:44", 
        "sdLicense": "https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/", 
        "sdPublisher": {
          "name": "Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project", 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "sdSource": "s3://com-springernature-scigraph/baseset/20220101/entities/gbq_results/article/article_753.jsonl", 
        "type": "ScholarlyArticle", 
        "url": "https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0"
      }
    ]
     

    Download the RDF metadata as:  json-ld nt turtle xml License info

    HOW TO GET THIS DATA PROGRAMMATICALLY:

    JSON-LD is a popular format for linked data which is fully compatible with JSON.

    curl -H 'Accept: application/ld+json' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0'

    N-Triples is a line-based linked data format ideal for batch operations.

    curl -H 'Accept: application/n-triples' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0'

    Turtle is a human-readable linked data format.

    curl -H 'Accept: text/turtle' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0'

    RDF/XML is a standard XML format for linked data.

    curl -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0'


     

    This table displays all metadata directly associated to this object as RDF triples.

    201 TRIPLES      22 PREDICATES      118 URIs      104 LITERALS      7 BLANK NODES

    Subject Predicate Object
    1 sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0 schema:about anzsrc-for:22
    2 anzsrc-for:2201
    3 schema:author Nd89f3c2856294c979a29454fa3363136
    4 schema:citation sg:pub.10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9
    5 sg:pub.10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3
    6 sg:pub.10.1038/477529a
    7 sg:pub.10.1038/530148a
    8 sg:pub.10.1038/532306a
    9 sg:pub.10.1186/1471-2288-13-74
    10 schema:datePublished 2017-09-15
    11 schema:datePublishedReg 2017-09-15
    12 schema:description Background: Winning funding for health and medical research usually involves a lengthy application process. With success rates under 20%, much of the time spent by 80% of applicants could have been better used on actual research. An alternative funding system that could save time is using democracy to award the most deserving researchers based on votes from the research community. We aimed to pilot how such a system could work and examine some potential biases. Methods: We used an online survey with a convenience sample of Australian researchers. Researchers were asked to name the 10 scientists currently working in Australia that they thought most deserved funding for future research. For comparison, we used recent winners from large national fellowship schemes that used traditional peer review. Results: Voting took a median of 5 min (inter-quartile range 3 to 10 min). Extrapolating to a national voting scheme, we estimate 599 working days of voting time (95% CI 490 to 728), compared with 827 working days for the current peer review system for fellowships. The gender ratio in the votes was a more equal 45:55 (female to male) compared with 34:66 in recent fellowship winners, although this could be explained by Simpson's paradox. Voters were biased towards their own institution, with an additional 1.6 votes per ballot (inter-quartile range 0.8 to 2.2) above the expected number. Respondents raised many concerns about the idea of using democracy to fund research, including vote rigging, lobbying and it becoming a popularity contest. Conclusions: This is a preliminary study of using voting that does not investigate many of the concerns about how a voting system would work. We were able to show that voting would take less time than traditional peer review and would spread the workload over many more reviewers. Further studies of alternative funding systems are needed as well as a wide discussion with the research community about potential changes.
    13 schema:genre article
    14 schema:inLanguage en
    15 schema:isAccessibleForFree true
    16 schema:isPartOf N0c977f2394ba41d79e1052e2075c457c
    17 N599d4680dafe4a1f906926b1540c68f0
    18 sg:journal.1053067
    19 schema:keywords Australia
    20 Australian researchers
    21 Fellowship Scheme
    22 Further studies
    23 Simpson's paradox
    24 actual research
    25 alternative funding systems
    26 applicants
    27 application process
    28 ballot
    29 biases
    30 changes
    31 community
    32 comparison
    33 concern
    34 contest
    35 convenience sample
    36 current peer review system
    37 days
    38 democracy
    39 deserving researchers
    40 discussion
    41 fellowship
    42 fellowship winners
    43 fund research
    44 funding
    45 funding system
    46 future research
    47 gender ratio
    48 health
    49 idea
    50 institutions
    51 large national fellowship schemes
    52 lengthy application process
    53 less time
    54 lobbying
    55 median
    56 medical research
    57 min
    58 more reviewers
    59 national fellowship schemes
    60 national voting scheme
    61 number
    62 observational study
    63 online survey
    64 own institution
    65 paradox
    66 peer review
    67 peer review system
    68 popularity contest
    69 potential biases
    70 potential changes
    71 preliminary study
    72 process
    73 rate
    74 ratio
    75 recent fellowship winners
    76 recent winners
    77 research
    78 research community
    79 research funding
    80 researchers
    81 respondents
    82 review
    83 review system
    84 reviewers
    85 rigging
    86 samples
    87 scheme
    88 scientists
    89 study
    90 success rate
    91 survey
    92 system
    93 time
    94 traditional peer review
    95 vote
    96 vote rigging
    97 voters
    98 voting
    99 voting scheme
    100 voting system
    101 voting time
    102 wider discussion
    103 winners
    104 workload
    105 schema:name Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study
    106 schema:pagination 16
    107 schema:productId N0db033b6788b4d9bb5181a99d6f963fb
    108 Nc1dfa561b30e45da89ef70133d347e04
    109 Ndafe66b147a849f89b2bb9dfd3f6fee4
    110 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1090763393
    111 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0
    112 schema:sdDatePublished 2022-01-01T18:44
    113 schema:sdLicense https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/
    114 schema:sdPublisher Nd52e8dd6a0e14b40a4a8eafebcfec30e
    115 schema:url https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0
    116 sgo:license sg:explorer/license/
    117 sgo:sdDataset articles
    118 rdf:type schema:ScholarlyArticle
    119 N0c977f2394ba41d79e1052e2075c457c schema:volumeNumber 2
    120 rdf:type schema:PublicationVolume
    121 N0db033b6788b4d9bb5181a99d6f963fb schema:name pubmed_id
    122 schema:value 29451532
    123 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
    124 N1e2329b1deb44234a7cb727196e4c1a9 rdf:first sg:person.0734456474.38
    125 rdf:rest N33978f274fd74c1f8ca81c8923e1cea0
    126 N33978f274fd74c1f8ca81c8923e1cea0 rdf:first sg:person.0701263035.55
    127 rdf:rest N91f59b67a2124ed5b247248b6a3afcfd
    128 N599d4680dafe4a1f906926b1540c68f0 schema:issueNumber 1
    129 rdf:type schema:PublicationIssue
    130 N91f59b67a2124ed5b247248b6a3afcfd rdf:first sg:person.01213532104.16
    131 rdf:rest rdf:nil
    132 Nc1dfa561b30e45da89ef70133d347e04 schema:name dimensions_id
    133 schema:value pub.1090763393
    134 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
    135 Nd52e8dd6a0e14b40a4a8eafebcfec30e schema:name Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project
    136 rdf:type schema:Organization
    137 Nd89f3c2856294c979a29454fa3363136 rdf:first sg:person.012524527342.78
    138 rdf:rest N1e2329b1deb44234a7cb727196e4c1a9
    139 Ndafe66b147a849f89b2bb9dfd3f6fee4 schema:name doi
    140 schema:value 10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0
    141 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
    142 anzsrc-for:22 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
    143 schema:name Philosophy and Religious Studies
    144 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
    145 anzsrc-for:2201 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
    146 schema:name Applied Ethics
    147 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
    148 sg:grant.7877105 http://pending.schema.org/fundedItem sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0
    149 rdf:type schema:MonetaryGrant
    150 sg:grant.7878109 http://pending.schema.org/fundedItem sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0
    151 rdf:type schema:MonetaryGrant
    152 sg:grant.7878690 http://pending.schema.org/fundedItem sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0
    153 rdf:type schema:MonetaryGrant
    154 sg:journal.1053067 schema:issn 2058-8615
    155 schema:name Research Integrity and Peer Review
    156 schema:publisher Springer Nature
    157 rdf:type schema:Periodical
    158 sg:person.01213532104.16 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.1024.7
    159 schema:familyName Graves
    160 schema:givenName Nicholas
    161 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.01213532104.16
    162 rdf:type schema:Person
    163 sg:person.012524527342.78 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.1024.7
    164 schema:familyName Barnett
    165 schema:givenName Adrian G.
    166 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.012524527342.78
    167 rdf:type schema:Person
    168 sg:person.0701263035.55 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.1024.7
    169 schema:familyName Vaquette
    170 schema:givenName Cedryck
    171 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0701263035.55
    172 rdf:type schema:Person
    173 sg:person.0734456474.38 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.1008.9
    174 schema:familyName Clarke
    175 schema:givenName Philip
    176 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0734456474.38
    177 rdf:type schema:Person
    178 sg:pub.10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1015444704
    179 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9
    180 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    181 sg:pub.10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1046537509
    182 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3
    183 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    184 sg:pub.10.1038/477529a schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1012262643
    185 https://doi.org/10.1038/477529a
    186 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    187 sg:pub.10.1038/530148a schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1035548674
    188 https://doi.org/10.1038/530148a
    189 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    190 sg:pub.10.1038/532306a schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1010168151
    191 https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a
    192 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    193 sg:pub.10.1186/1471-2288-13-74 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1045430318
    194 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-74
    195 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    196 grid-institutes:grid.1008.9 schema:alternateName Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC Australia
    197 schema:name Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC Australia
    198 rdf:type schema:Organization
    199 grid-institutes:grid.1024.7 schema:alternateName Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059 Australia
    200 schema:name Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059 Australia
    201 rdf:type schema:Organization
     




    Preview window. Press ESC to close (or click here)


    ...