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 LiXiaolei20
Estimated H-index: 20
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences),
Yongjia Xie4
Estimated H-index: 4
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
+ 1 AuthorsYuanping Chen2
Estimated H-index: 2
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
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 (2)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
110 Citations
12 Citations
80 Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
#1Elizabeth P. Anderson (FIU: Florida International University)H-Index: 6
#2Jennifer C. Veilleux (FIU: Florida International University)H-Index: 4
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
6 CitationsSource
#1Ferric C. Fang (UW: University of Washington)H-Index: 68
#2Arturo Casadevall (Johns Hopkins University)H-Index: 98
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
4 CitationsSource
#1Qiang Zhi (CUFE: Central University of Finance and Economics)H-Index: 6
#2Tianguang Meng (THU: Tsinghua University)H-Index: 6
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 ...
13 CitationsSource
#1Athen Ma (QMUL: Queen Mary University of London)H-Index: 11
#2Raul J. Mondragon (QMUL: Queen Mary University of London)H-Index: 11
Last. Vito Latora (University of Catania)H-Index: 58
view all 3 authors...
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...
26 CitationsSource
#1Michael Szell (NU: Northeastern University)H-Index: 16
#2Roberta Sinatra (NU: Northeastern University)H-Index: 16
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 ...
9 CitationsSource
#1Jiang Wu (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 9
#2Miao Jin (WHU: Wuhan University)H-Index: 1
Last. Xiu-Hao Ding (HUST: Huazhong University of Science and Technology)H-Index: 6
view all 3 authors...
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...
5 CitationsSource
#2M. Goldschmidt (PSU: Pennsylvania State University)H-Index: 1
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...
13 CitationsSource
#1Jiang Wu (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 9
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...
12 CitationsSource
#1Yu Xie (PKU: Peking University)H-Index: 40
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...
33 CitationsSource
#1He Guang-x (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 1
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...
2 Citations
Cited By2
#1Shanhua He (YZU: Yangzhou University)
#2Tiaoyuan Mao (Soochow University (Suzhou))
ABSTRACTThe current Language Policy and Planning (LPP) literature does not differentiate between LPP as practical planning and LPP as a research area. This lack of a conceptual distinction has led ...
#1Xiuwen Chen (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 2
#2Jianping LiXiaolei (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 20
Last. Dengsheng Wu (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 12
view all 4 authors...
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...
#1Dengsheng Wu (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 12
#2Lili Yuan (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 2
Last. Jianping LiXiaolei (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 20
view all 4 authors...
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...
2 CitationsSource