Is it fair to let grant applicants review others' work?

In the world of research funding, a new idea is being put to the test. What if the people applying for grants also got to review the applications of others? This is called distributed peer review. It's a way to get more researchers involved in deciding who gets funding. Some folks are trying this out in real life. They want to see if it works better than the usual way of doing things. The usual way is to have a small group of experts review the applications. But with distributed peer review, many more people get a say.The big question is, does this make the process fairer? Or does it make things more complicated? Some people think it's a good idea because it gives more researchers a chance to be involved. Others worry that it might not be as fair, because not everyone has the same expertise. Another thing to think about is how this affects the people applying for grants. If they have to review others' work, does that take time away from their own research? Or does it help them learn more about their field? It's also important to think about the quality of the reviews. With more people involved, will the reviews be better? Or will they be too varied and hard to compare? Only time will tell if distributed peer review is the way to go. But it's definitely an interesting idea to think about.