Match!

Most scientists prefer small and mid-sized research grants

Published on Aug 1, 2019in Nature Human Behaviour10.575
· DOI :10.1038/s41562-019-0643-1
Henrik Dimke17
Estimated H-index: 17
(University of Southern Denmark),
Maria Theresa Norn (AU: Aarhus University)+ 2 AuthorsNikolaj Thomas Zinner21
Estimated H-index: 21
(AU: Aarhus University)
Abstract
Scientists’ own perspectives on research funding are often missing. To address this, we surveyed Danish scientists about their ideal research grant. In contrast to a trend towards larger grants, most surveyed scientists prefer small or mid-sized grants to pursue their ideas and advance their scientific careers.
  • References (10)
  • Citations (0)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
390 Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
References10
Newest
#1Lingfei Wu (U of C: University of Chicago)H-Index: 2
#2Dashun Wang (NU: Northwestern University)H-Index: 16
Last. James A. Evans (U of C: University of Chicago)H-Index: 19
view all 3 authors...
One of the most universal trends in science and technology today is the growth of large teams in all areas, as solitary researchers and small teams diminish in prevalence1–3. Increases in team size have been attributed to the specialization of scientific activities3, improvements in communication technology4,5, or the complexity of modern problems that require interdisciplinary solutions6–8. This shift in team size raises the question of whether and how the character of the science and technolog...
23 CitationsSource
#1Jian Wang (LEI: Leiden University)H-Index: 13
#2You-Na Lee (NUS: National University of Singapore)H-Index: 6
Last. John Walsii (Georgia Institute of Technology)H-Index: 30
view all 3 authors...
In many countries the scientific funding system is shifting from an internal block funding model toward a competitive project funding model. However, there is growing concern that the competitive project funding system favors relatively safe, conventional projects at the expense of risky, novel research. It is important to assess different funding models in order to design better funding systems for science. This paper empirically tests for differences in the novelty of funded outputs between in...
6 CitationsSource
#1Jian Wang (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)H-Index: 13
#2Reinhilde Veugelers (Bruegel)H-Index: 36
Last. Paula E. Stephan (GSU: Georgia State University)H-Index: 36
view all 3 authors...
Research which explores unchartered waters has a high potential for major impact but also carries a high uncertainty of having minimal impact. Such explorative research is often described as taking a novel approach. This study examines the complex relationship between pursuing a novel approach and impact. We measure novelty by examining the extent to which a published paper makes first time ever combinations of referenced journals, taking into account the difficulty of making such combinations. ...
54 CitationsSource
#1Carter Bloch (AU: Aarhus University)H-Index: 16
#2Jesper W. Schneider (AU: Aarhus University)H-Index: 18
Last. Thomas Sinkjær (National Research Foundation of South Africa)H-Index: 56
view all 3 authors...
The present paper examines the relation between size, accumulation and performance for research grants, where we examine the relation between grant size for Centres of Excellence (CoE) funded by the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF) and various ex post research performance measures, including impact and shares of highly cited articles. We examine both the relation between size and performance and also how performance for CoEs evolves over the course of grant periods. In terms of dynamic...
5 CitationsSource
#1You-Na Lee (Georgia Institute of Technology)H-Index: 6
#2John Walsii (GRIPS: National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies)H-Index: 30
Last. Jian Wang (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)H-Index: 13
view all 3 authors...
The increasing dominance of team science highlights the importance of understanding the effects of team composition on the creativity of research results. In this paper, we analyze the effect of team size, and field and task variety on creativity. Furthermore, we unpack two facets of creativity in science: novelty and impact. We find that increasing team size has an inverted-U shaped relation with novelty. We also find that the size–novelty relationship is largely due to the relation between siz...
64 CitationsSource
#1Carter Bloch (AU: Aarhus University)H-Index: 16
#2Mads P. Sørensen (AU: Aarhus University)H-Index: 6
This paper examines the role of grant size in research funding. There is an increasing focus in a number of countries on larger grant forms, such as centers of excellence, and in some cases also increases in the size of individual project grants. Among the rationales for this are economies of scale in research and redistribution of resources towards top researchers in order to increases scientific productivity and pathbreaking research. However, there may potentially also be negative impacts of ...
26 CitationsSource
#1Jean-Michel Fortin (U of O: University of Ottawa)H-Index: 2
#2David J. Currie (U of O: University of Ottawa)H-Index: 41
Agencies that fund scientific research must choose: is it more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers? Large grants would be more effective only if scientific impact increases as an accelerating function of grant size. Here, we examine the scientific impact of individual university-based researchers in three disciplines funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We considered four indices of scientifi...
86 CitationsSource
Too many US authors of the most innovative and influential papers in the life sciences do not receive NIH funding, contend Joshua M. Nicholson and John P. A. Ioannidis.
73 CitationsSource
#1Lutz Bornmann (ETH Zurich)H-Index: 48
#2Loet Leydesdorff (UvA: University of Amsterdam)H-Index: 83
Last. Peter van den Besselaar (VU: VU University Amsterdam)H-Index: 28
view all 3 authors...
Combining different data sets with information on grant and fellowship applications submitted to two renowned funding agencies, we are able to compare their funding decisions (award and rejection) with scientometric performance indicators across two fields of science (life sciences and social sciences). The data sets involve 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life sciences. In both fields, awarded applicants perform on average better than all rejected applicants. If only...
56 CitationsSource
Facing a flood of applications from researchers, a UK funding agency is taking drastic steps — and partners around the world are watching how it plays out. Richard Van Noorden and Geoff Brumfiel report.
8 CitationsSource
Cited By0
Newest