A Quite Interesting Approach to Refereeing
Last night I was struggling to compose a clue for the latest Azed Crossword competition (No. 2065) so I gave up and switched on the TV. I ended up watching an episode of QI, a popular entertainment programme in the form of a panel game, hosted by Lord Stephen of Fry. The title stands, I think, for Quite Interesting, rather than the active principle found in chinese medicine, which is an extremely useful word to know in Scrabble if you have a Q and no U.
Anyway, one of the features of said television programme is that if guests answer a question not only incorrectly but also in a manner that’s predictable, stale or hackneyed, in such a way that it matches a pre-prepared list of such responses, then a claxon sounds and a penalty of ten points is applied. If you want to hear the claxon…
These forfeits are so frequently applied that it is by no means uncommon for the winner of the quiz to have a net score which is negative.
Anyway, watching this it occurred to me that it suggests a quite interesting way of livening up the business of refereeing grant applications, especially since in these difficult times a good outcome of an application to renew a geant might well be minus two PDRAs!
It’s quite easy to come up with a list of tedious clichés that you’re likely to find in a cosmology application, e.g. “We have now entered an era of precision cosmology…”, “Generic inflationary scenario”, “inspired by string theory”, “assuming a linear bias”, etc etc. From now on I’m going to press the buzzer every time I read such a phrase and subtract the resulting penalty from the score assigned to the proposal.
However, it would be unfair to apply this idea just to cosmology proposals. In order to make it more generally applicable, perhaps my loyal readers might suggest, through the Comments Box, similarly worn out, trite or banal terms appropriate to their own specialism?
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
January 4, 2012 at 12:00 pm
I think you are alluding to an inverse form of what is commonly known in business circles as Bullshit Bingo.
One can also apply the rules of “Just a Minute” to documents and discussions. I’ve suggested this for board meetings in the past, but we couldn’t get Nicholas Parsons to come along. “As the Minute Walz fades away…”
January 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm
I should have said “And as the The Waltz in D flat major, Op. 64, No. 1, by Chopin, fades away”.
January 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm
We could have done with a “just a minute” rule for introducers on the last AGP round, as it was so over-subscribed. Each project should be discussed in one minute, without repetition, hesitation, deviation or repetition.
Blast.
January 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Or repetition.
January 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm
JAH: I’d not heard of “Bullshit bingo” before. A brilliant notion and phrase!
January 5, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Agreed. Like Boycott Bingo on Test Match Special!
January 6, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Try telling Boycott that Headingley is in the Midlands…
January 6, 2012 at 2:58 pm
He probably thinks it’s the Centre of the Universe!
January 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Ongoing. Tthe world’s worst word.
January 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm
World-leading
M.
January 4, 2012 at 1:46 pm
indeed – i found this term in 30/38 grant proposal from 2011. it typically appears only twice (the worst example had it four times). interestingly several of those grants which didn’t contain it were well regarded…
January 4, 2012 at 1:50 pm
With all these leaders, I think the AGP should try to ensure that there is at least one follower.
January 4, 2012 at 1:32 pm
I am sure this only happens in cosmology! And ‘String theory’ seems rarely used in astronomy grant applications these days and may have moved from the cliche to the suicidally brave. Referees looking for a killer killer may allude to it.
January 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Not just cosmology. Take, for example, “the heating of the Solar Corona”…or..”possibly a planet in the habitable zone”.
January 4, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I always think of “string-inspired cosmology” as the physics equivalent of nausea-induced vomiting.
January 4, 2012 at 2:05 pm
“This research would fill a much needed gap.”
January 4, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Yes. We need more gaps. Anyway, why would only physics of the gaps be fundable?
January 4, 2012 at 3:28 pm
My old research on galaxies got a mention on QI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olf4kSYUi8c ), although only through the Forbes-Kroupa poll.
January 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm
btw – did you get your AZED clue definition completed?
I have never felt the need to be string theory-inspired, but rest assured, I will attempt to include the phrase in my next world-leading proposal, going forward,
M.
January 4, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Yes, I did compose a clue and posted it off this morning. Not sure it’s any good though. The word was DERMESTIDAE.
January 5, 2012 at 6:13 am
Haven’t you used the Blablameter?
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2011/07/blablameter.html