Fairer funding: A lottery-first approach for more equitable research grant allocation

In science, many projects depend on external research funding. However, current procedures for allocating third-party funding are time-consuming, costly, and not free from bias, including disadvantages for women. Researchers at University of Lübeck have now investigated how to combine chance and scientific excellence. In a new study published in Nature Communications, they report a surprising finding: When a lottery is used to decide who may submit a full proposal, not only do more women benefit, but society gains as well.

Submitting applications for teaching and research funding requires above all one thing: time. Academics often spend weeks or even months writing proposals, undergoing review and rejection, frequently without success. Only a small percentage of applications are ultimately funded. This does not only waste money, but also ties up substantial resources that cannot be invested in research and teaching. In addition, numerous studies show that there is underrepresentation of women in conventional funding systems.

A research team led by Prof. Dr. Sören Krach at the University of Lübeck has now shown empirically for the first time that an alternative allocation procedure can provide a solution. Instead of requiring all interested researchers to immediately prepare extensive applications, an initial lottery determines who may participate. Only then does the classical peer review by expert reviewers take place. This “lottery-first” approach was implemented by the Foundation for Innovation in Higher Education (StIL) and evaluated by Prof. Krach and his team. The findings are clear. The representation of female applicants increased by around 10 percent, and the proportion of funded female-led projects rose by 23 percent compared to the previously used procedure. At the same time, estimated economic costs, meaning time spent by applicants, reviewers and administrative staff, decreased by approximately two-thirds.

“The allocation of research and teaching funds shapes which questions are pursued and what is considered relevant,” says Prof. Krach. “Our study shows that introducing a lottery before peer review can be a fair and efficient method that may reduce bias and saves substantial resources.” The approach was also well received in the scientific community. Around half of respondents supported combining a lottery with peer review, and appreciated in particular the lower workload and increased planning reliability.

Why This Matters

Research funding systems are not merely administrative mechanisms. They influence academic careers, the direction of scientific inquiry and societal innovation. When certain groups, such as women, face disadvantages in funding competitions or when the system consumes too much time, this directly slows scientific progress. The study from the University of Lübeck provides empirical evidence that new approaches to allocating teaching and research funding are not only theoretically discussed but can also be implemented in practice with measurable positive effects.

Background

The Foundation for Innovation in Higher Education (Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre, StIL) is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the federal states. It supports projects aimed at improving university teaching in Germany. Through its “Freiraum” programme, innovative teaching concepts were supported, with around 50 million euros available for funding in 2024. The present study used this call to compare different allocation methods, including the lottery-first approach.