Thank you for writing this article. But I also wanted to offer a few additional points.

First is that in the US, the NSF review process has a few of the elements you discuss; in particular, each proposal is reviewed by at least two panelists, each of whom may review as many as 20 grants, which provides (ideally) a somewhat more objective ranking spectrum. The entire panel discusses each proposal, albeit briefly, meaning that even proposals considered flawed by reviewers get a hearing and a chance at redemption. And program directors are not bound by the panel's rankings, and therefore do seem to take account of many factors that, for various reasons, reviewers might not be responsive to. And finally, the NSF limits one's CV to five relevant papers and five others.

Second, I think that limitations on the length of an application, in the context of the current system, skew the review process toward established researchers, who have track records and friends among the panels, over young scientists. It will always be true that reputation and past accomplishments (rightly) figure into reviewer's evaluations of feasibility. Perhaps a different solution would be to shift toward short pre-proposals, which, if deemed promising by program directors, would be expanded into full proposals for review.

Third, one of the most aggravating things about the grant process (in the US at least) is the seeming scarcity of means to appeal, achieve probation, or get provisional funding. There is simply no opportunity, for example, to rebut reviewers, short of re-submitting on the next deadline (which might, with luck, arrive after the reviews). And we all know, if we are honest with ourselves, that our own efforts as reviewers are error-prone. Both as an applicant and as a reviewer, I would love the opportunity for a dialogue. In the wired world, surely this is not impossible, as long as we can abandon the vestigial habit of anonymity.

Thank you again for your article.