“Thank you for your invitation to review. Did the authors provide the data and the code they have used to produce the paper? If not, can you ask them to? Please make sure that the authors have their data and code available, so that I will be able to evaluate the manuscript. Otherwise, I will have to decline.” This is my rerevised Conditional Review Acceptance Policy (CRAP – R2). In 2014, I introduced a conditional review acceptance policy.

Here’s an unusual thing for you to read: I am posting a brief description of a grant proposal that I will submit for the ‘vici’-competition of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research 2019 later this year. You can download the “pre-proposal” here. It is called “Global Giving”. With the study I aim to describe and explain philanthropy in a large number of countries across the world.

Jurgen Dhollander vroeg: “Enerzijds neemt het geefgedrag de laatste twintig jaar af, afgezet tegen het bbp. Het gaat hier dan om geven aan goede doelen. Anderzijds wordt er ook veel – ik noem het informeel – gedoneerd aan personen of ‘doelen’ dichtbij. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan crowdfunding. Zijn er cijfers bekend die enig idee geven over de grootte van deze vorm van doneren?

Economen spreken van een basisgoed als de consumptie ervan relatief gesproken afneemt met het inkomen. Dit geldt heel duidelijk voor geven aan goede doelen. Hogere inkomens en vermogens doen in euro’s meer aan filantropie, maar als deel van hun inkomen en vermogen juist minder.

By Barbara Gouwenberg and René Bekkers At the Center for Philanthropic Studies we have been working hard to secure funding for three rounds of funding for the Giving in the Netherlands Study, including the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey for the years 2020-2026.

Door Barbara Gouwenberg – uit de nieuwsbrief van de werkgroep Filantropische Studies aan de VU (december 2018) Het Centrum voor Filantropische Studies werkt momenteel met man en macht om de financiering voor het onderzoek Geven in Nederland voor de komende 6 jaar (3 edities) veilig te stellen.

As an open science enthusiast I try to lead by example – you will gather from my blog that I am an online activist when it comes to the incentives in academia and the evaluation of research careers. Last Wednesday I took a few minutes to create a poster for an online campaign to encourage researchers to cite the data they have collected or other data they are using.

In the prehistoric era of competitive science, researchers were like magicians: they earned a reputation for tricks that nobody could repeat and shared their secrets only with trusted disciples.

Gordon Feld posted a comparison of results from a repeated measures ANOVA with paired samples t-tests. Using Stata, I wondered how these results would look in a regression framework. For those of you who want to replicate this: I used the data provided by Gordon. The do-file is here.

“What do people misunderstand about your research?” A great question that allows me to correct a few popular ideas about our research on philanthropy. 1. Who pays you? The first misunderstanding is that charities pay for our research on philanthropy. We understand that you would think that, because for charitable organizations it is useful to know what makes people give. After all, they are in the business of fundraising.

The Department of Sociology of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is looking for a professor in the area of charity lotteries. The professor is expected to conduct research on the relations between charity lotteries, nonprofit organizations, and the government.