In your opinion, which of the following best mitigates potential funding bias in research? (Select up to three)

Answer Explanations

• Diverse funding portfolio Independent peer review Other (please specify)

  user-751315
  Several of these are design considerations, not funding bias.  The number one rememdy to funding bias is to impeach and prosecute Trump and his cabinet, then elect a government who supports education over propaganda.
• Diverse funding portfolio Independent peer review Other (please specify)

  user-790048
  Explicit strategies that prevent the funneling of monies mainly to already well-funded labs.
• user-546903
  Funding source does not matter.  Pre-registration of protocol to ensure that results are published whether positive or negative is more important than funding source.
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Independent statistical analysis Open data sharing

  user-120105
  Less possibility for cheats. Which in my 3-4 decades of research I have sadly found to be to relatively common.
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Independent statistical analysis Open data sharing

  user-848733
  I have forced myself to select 3 options, but I am not sure any will work except for 'transparent disclosure of funding sources,' which we already do. OPen data sharing is not really an option given that we put in a lot of time and money to collect the data and wnat to use it for multiple manuscripts before sharing it. Why would I hand over my yet-to-be-analyzed data to the public? Independent statistical analysis is not really possible given resource limitations. We need to come up with something else. 
• Pre-registration of research protocols Transparent disclosure of funding sources Independent peer review

  user-655754
  all of these could
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Independent peer review

  user-89669
  I guess disclosure is sufficient, the other stuff is more on experimental data rather than on funding
• Independent statistical analysis Open data sharing Independent peer review

  user-426175
  The pursuit of profit must be excluded, otherwise only falsified and distorted results will be produced.
• Blinded research design (where feasible) Independent peer review

  user-683654
  Independent peer review is very important. This mitigates people from funding acquaintances. 
• user-920129
  1. Open data sharing (Scientific community can scrutinize and verify the data independently and it can reduce the hidden biases or selective reporting.
  2. Independent peer review (Independent and blind peer review ensures unbiased evaluation and the standard of the scientific community.
  3. Independent statistical analysis (By doing this, manipulation of the data can be prevented and further it ensures that objectivity in the interpretation of the results is not compromised).
• Pre-registration of research protocols Transparent disclosure of funding sources Open data sharing

  user-937607
  Independent statistical analysis is tricky in most projects because a trustworthy and meaningful analysis should be integrally tied to the research context -- and understanding of the design, measurement, assumptions, etc.   However, there is much more a prior work that can be documented relative to statistical analysis and planning for how to interpret results after analysis that could go a long way in terms of adding trustworthiness.   This is something I am passionate about and wanting to help researchers do more effectively.
• Pre-registration of research protocols Open data sharing Blinded research design (where feasible)

  user-869302
  Publishing protocols helps avoid situations where researchers change the purpose of their work once they decide they can obtain salacious findings by reworking the data.
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources

  user-464698
  Because it prevents the research project from hidden influence of unknown funding sources.
• Other (please specify)

  user-708877
  All matters, it is difficult to choose one of them
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Independent peer review

  user-738385
  Researchers demonstrate transparency when they honestly declare lack of conflict of interest in their work. 
• Blinded research design (where feasible)

  user-334263
  When research design is blinded, both the data collector and the funder does not know which participants are being treated
• Pre-registration of research protocols Independent statistical analysis Blinded research design (where feasible)

  user-293230
  Bias is best mitigated through active strategies such as independent statistical analysis, following pre-registered protocols, and having blinded research designs. Transparency such as funding disclosures, making data available, and having independent peer review is critical and necessary to help avoid the appearance of bias, however these things do not necessarily mitigate bias.
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Independent statistical analysis Blinded research design (where feasible)

  user-740795
   

  Transparent disclosure of funding sources, independent statistical analysis, and blinded research design (where feasible) are key strategies to mitigate funding bias in research. Disclosure ensures potential conflicts of interest are visible, allowing critical evaluation of bias risks. Independent analysis reduces the chance of data manipulation by separating interpretation from funders’ influence. Blinding minimizes both conscious and unconscious biases during research conduct and assessment, particularly in studies involving subjective outcomes.
  
  
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Diverse funding portfolio Independent peer review

  user-685267
  A combination of transparency, independent review, and funding diversity is key to protecting scientific integrity.
• Independent peer review

  user-884562
  Because independent peer review avoids conflict of interest
• Open data sharing Blinded research design (where feasible) Other (please specify)

  user-984622
  Other:  when feasible, blinded reviewing (e.g. reviewer does not know who applicant is).
• Other (please specify)

  user-388091
  the best way to mitigate funding bias is to set a payline that goes right down the scoring percentile set by the independent peeri review panel. Unless you do that, the agency can cherry pick a bad grant or not choose a strong grant based on bias. 
• Pre-registration of research protocols Transparent disclosure of funding sources Blinded research design (where feasible)

  user-107268
  Pre-registration research protocol ensures the researchers do not deviate from their original research idea; this is very important to mitigate the researchers’ biases that may occur during the research processes. Then disclosing the sources of research findings allow transparency, therefore important step to mitigate the financial biases. Furthermore blinding research design where possible allows to avoid the researcher assumption biases hence improving the validity of the research finding. It is noteworthy mentioning that in some instance the blinded researcher method is not always possible.
• Open data sharing Blinded research design (where feasible) Independent peer review

  user-143325
  Currently we do not have double blinded peer review for grants.  When one of the top journals (science or nature) looked at bias in publishing, double blinded manuscripts were reviewed much different than those that were not.   
• Pre-registration of research protocols Transparent disclosure of funding sources Independent peer review

  user-266767
  Full disclosure ensures transparency, allowing readers to assess any potential conflicts of interest that could influence study outcomes. Independent peer review acts as a safeguard, ensuring that the research is scrutinized by unbiased experts who can identify any potential flaws or biases introduced by the funding source. Pre-registration of study protocols further enhances credibility by committing researchers to a clear, transparent plan, reducing the temptation to selectively report data or adjust hypotheses after the fact. Together, these strategies build trust in the research process and help mitigate the risk of funding bias influencing study results.
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Blinded research design (where feasible) Independent peer review

  user-863938
  Transparent disclosure of funding sources
  Transparency allows readers and reviewers to assess potential conflicts of interest, which is essential for maintaining trust in the research.
  
  

  Independent peer review
  A rigorous, unbiased peer review process is one of the most effective safeguards against biased or low-quality research slipping through.
  
  

  Blinded research design (where feasible)
  Blinding helps prevent conscious or unconscious influence by researchers or sponsors, especially in clinical and experimental settings.
  
  
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Open data sharing Independent peer review

  user-67856
  I noticed very few reviewers are giving correct comments. But research square-like platforms perform well ...well, in terms of providing constructive feedback. This discrepancy may suggest that while some platforms excel in facilitating discourse, the quality of reviews can vary significantly depending on the community and the engagement of its members.
  
  
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Independent peer review

  user-293503
  Both of these seem important for mitigating funding bias.
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Open data sharing Independent peer review

  user-625643
  The three I selected are all totally necessary for science.
• Pre-registration of research protocols Independent statistical analysis Independent peer review

  user-237452
  Please provide the list of options you're given for this question, so I can help you select up to three that best mitigate potential funding bias in research.
• Pre-registration of research protocols Transparent disclosure of funding sources Open data sharing

  user-952693
  Independent peer review for internationally recognized publications is one of the best ways to integrate data credibility within the scientific community in order to keep it abreast of unbiased views.
• Transparent disclosure of funding sources Open data sharing Blinded research design (where feasible)

  user-498299
  Most to least: blinded, sharing, transparency
• Independent peer review

  user-531294
  key element