Match!

Underestimating or overestimating the distribution inequality of research funding? The influence of funding sources and subdivision

Published on Jul 1, 2017in Scientometrics2.77
· DOI :10.1007/s11192-017-2402-2
Jianping LiXiaolei19
Estimated H-index: 19
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences),
Yongjia Xie4
Estimated H-index: 4
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
+ 1 AuthorsYuanping Chen1
Estimated H-index: 1
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
Cite
Abstract
Research funding is a significant support for the development of scientific research. The inequality of research funding is an intrinsic feature of science, and policy makers have realized the over-concentration of funding allocation. Previous studies have tried to use the Gini coefficient to measure this inequality; however, the phenomena of multiple funding sources and funding subdivision have not been deeply discussed and empirically studied due to limitations on data availability. This paper provides a more accurate analysis of the distribution inequality of research funding, and it considers all of the funding sources in the funding system and the subdivision of funding to junior researchers within research teams. We aim to determine the influence of these two aspects of the Gini results at the individual level. A dataset with 68,697 project records and 80,380 subproject records from the Chinese Academy of Sciences during the period from 2011 to 2015 is collected to validate the problem. The empirical results show that (1) the Gini coefficient for a single funding source is biased and may be overestimated or underestimated, and the most common data source, which is the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), causes the Gini coefficient to be underestimated; and (2) considering the subdivision of research funding lowers the inequality of research funding, with a smaller Gini coefficient, although the decrease is moderate.
  • References (20)
  • Citations (1)
Cite
References20
Newest
Published on Apr 8, 2016in Science41.04
Ferric C. Fang67
Estimated H-index: 67
(UW: University of Washington),
Arturo Casadevall96
Estimated H-index: 96
(Johns Hopkins University)
Few science policy issues are more important than the allocation of research funding. Although a 2015 Report suggested that peer review has some ability to prioritize applications ([ 1 ][1]), it is not clear that the best science is being funded ([ 2 ][2]). There is evidence of poor precision and
Published on Apr 8, 2016in Science41.04
Elizabeth P. Anderson5
Estimated H-index: 5
(FIU: Florida International University),
Jennifer C. Veilleux4
Estimated H-index: 4
(FIU: Florida International University)
Recent pieces in Science rightly call for greater examination of the environmental, political, and economic trade-offs of tropical dams. In his Feature news story “Power play on the Nile” (26 February, p. [904][1]), E. Stokstad explores political uncertainties of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance
Published on Feb 1, 2016in Scientometrics2.77
Qiang Zhi2
Estimated H-index: 2
(CUFE: Central University of Finance and Economics),
Tianguang Meng5
Estimated H-index: 5
(THU: Tsinghua University)
Scientific research activity produces the "Matthew Effect" on resource allocation. Based on a data set in the life sciences field from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) during the 11th Five-Year-Plan (2006---2010), this paper makes an empirical study on how the Matthew Effect of funding allocation at the institutional level and city level impact scientific research activity output. With Gini coefficient evaluation, descriptive statistic analysis, and the Poisson regression ...
Athen Ma10
Estimated H-index: 10
(QMUL: Queen Mary University of London),
Raul J. Mondragon11
Estimated H-index: 11
(QMUL: Queen Mary University of London),
Vito Latora54
Estimated H-index: 54
(University of Catania)
Seeking research funding is an essential part of academic life. Funded projects are primarily collaborative in nature through internal and external partnerships, but what role does funding play in the formulation of these partnerships? Here, by examining over 43,000 scientific projects funded over the past three decades by one of the major government research agencies in the world, we characterize how the funding landscape has changed and its impacts on the underlying collaboration networks acro...
Michael Szell14
Estimated H-index: 14
(NU: Northeastern University),
Roberta Sinatra16
Estimated H-index: 16
(NU: Northeastern University)
Science is an enterprise driven fundamentally by social relations and dynamics (1). Thanks to comprehensive bibliometric datasets on scientific production and the development of new tools in network science in the past decade, traces of these relations can now be analyzed in the form of citation and coauthorship networks, shedding light on the complex structure of scientific collaboration patterns (2, 3), on reputation effects (4), and even on the development of entire fields (5, 6). What about ...
Published on May 1, 2015in Scientometrics2.77
Jiang Wu5
Estimated H-index: 5
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences),
Miao Jin1
Estimated H-index: 1
(WHU: Wuhan University),
Xiu-Hao Ding2
Estimated H-index: 2
(HUST: Huazhong University of Science and Technology)
Given the development in modern science and technology, scientists need interdisciplinary knowledge and collaborations. In the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), more than 59 % of individuals change their disciplinary application codes to pursue interdisciplinary applications for scientific funding. An algorithm that classifies interdisciplinary applications and calculates the diversity of individual research disciplines (DIRD) is proposed based on three-level disciplinary appl...
Published on Mar 1, 2015in Research Policy5.42
J.W. Fedderke and M. Velez1
Estimated H-index: 1
,
M. Goldschmidt1
Estimated H-index: 1
(PSU: Pennsylvania State University)
In this study we evaluate whether a substantial increase in public funding to researchers is associated with a material difference in their productivity. We compare performance measures of researchers who were granted substantial funding against researchers with similar scholarly standing who did not receive such funding. We find that substantial funding is associated with raised researcher performance – though the increase is moderate, is strongly conditional on the quality of the researcher wh...
Published on Jan 1, 2015in Journal of Informetrics3.88
Jiang Wu5
Estimated H-index: 5
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
Distributing scientific funding to the suitable universities and research fields is very important to the innovation acceleration in science and technology. Using a longitudinal panel dataset of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the total 224,087 sponsored projects is utilized to investigate the distributions of scientific funding across universities and research disciplines. The inequality of funding distribution is studied through the investigation of Gini coefficient, a...
Published on May 23, 2014in Science41.04
Yu Xie40
Estimated H-index: 40
(PKU: Peking University)
In recent years, academic scholarship and public discourse have become increasingly preoccupied with social and economic inequality, which has risen in many countries. It is surprising that more attention has not been paid to the large, changing inequalities in the world of scientific research. I suggest that although the basic structure of inequalities in science has remained unchanged, their intensities and mechanisms may have been altered by recent forces of globalization and internet technol...
Published on Jan 1, 2014in China Soft Science
He Guang-x1
Estimated H-index: 1
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
Using a national wide sampling data,this paper studied the inequality and concentration of RD funds among Chinese researchers. The result shows that the inequality of RD funds among researchers reaches an extremely high level. Gini coefficient of RD funds is as high as 0. 867,and the top 20% "richest"researchers grasp 90% of all RD funds. Further analysis shows that the concentration of RD outputs is regressive to "rich " researchers, and administrative leaders grasp too much funds. In sum,the p...
Cited By1
Newest
Published on Jul 13, 2019in Scientometrics2.77
Xiuwen Chen2
Estimated H-index: 2
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences),
Jianping LiXiaolei19
Estimated H-index: 19
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
+ 1 AuthorsDengsheng Wu10
Estimated H-index: 10
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
From the initial idea, writing, submitting, and reviewing to the online presentation of a research paper takes a long time. The identified intellectual structure of a research paper may have a certain time lag. In view of this problem, scholars have suggested that research grants may be an alternative way to identify intellectual structure as early as possible. However, these comments are mentioned qualitatively. Few researchers have verified the research grant by early identification of the int...
Published on Nov 1, 2018in Journal of Informetrics3.88
Dengsheng Wu (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences), Lili Yuan1
Estimated H-index: 1
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
+ 1 AuthorsJianping Li (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
Abstract The inequality in research funding is an important issue, in which the measurement of inequality is the basis. The literature has mostly investigated the inequality in research funding by providing overall values of inequality but has rarely explored this topic through the internal structure of the overall inequality. In this paper, a three-stage nested Theil index is employed to decompose the overall inequality in research funding into the between and within components. Moreover, a dec...