Table 3.

Responses to four questions concerning the random allocation of funding

Question number and text	Yes	Unsure		No
Q1. Was the format and length of the Explorer Grant application adequate for you to communicate the novelty and transformative nature of the proposal?	115 (91%)	6 (5%)		5 (4%)
Q2. Do you think the randomisation process is an acceptable method of allocating Explorer Grant funds?	79 (63%)	15 (12%)		32 (25%)
Q3. Do you think a randomisation process would be an acceptable method for the allocation of funding for other grant types?	50 (40%)	30 (24%)		46 (37%)
Q6. Did the knowledge that funding could be randomly allocated affect how you approached and/or wrote your Explorer Grant application?	31 (25%)	8 (6%)		87 (69%)
Q7. The identities of applicants are anonymous to the assessors. Do you think this is an acceptable approach for Explorer Grant assessment?	112 (89%)	12 (10%)		2 (2%)
	Less time	No difference	More time	Unsure
Q5. Did the knowledge that funding could be randomly allocated affect the amount of time you spent preparing your application?	20 (16%)	94 (75%)	6 (5%)	6 (5%)

Cells show the number and row percent (N = 126).