Abstract

Recently, several funding agencies have introduced the distribution of funds by a lottery system; however, its effects on the productivity of the research community are unclear. Simulation studies in philosophy of science have argued that a combination of peer review and lottery is an optimal method. However, these models overlook several important aspects of research activities, such as baseline funding through block grants. In this study, I constructed a general theoretical model that incorporates these aspects and argue that the conventional combination of peer review and baseline funding outperforms the combination of peer review and lottery in many situations.