Funding fewer but larger research grants is likely to decrease 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트 science base, a study has concluded.
In recent years many funders worldwide, including 바카라사이트 UK research councils and 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust, have given out longer and larger grants to fewer applicants in 바카라사이트 belief that concentrating funding on 바카라사이트 best researchers will maximise 바카라사이트 money’s scientific impact.
However, in 바카라사이트 journal PLOS One by Jean-Michel Fortin and David Currie, respectively research assistant and professor in biology at 바카라사이트 University of Ottawa in Canada, argues that this approach is misguided.
The conclusion is based on analysis of papers funded by 바카라사이트 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada – which is also moving towards fewer, larger grants – between 2002 and 2010.
The paper, “Big Science vs Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding”, uses four bibliographic measures to assess grant recipients’ scientific impact: 바카라사이트 volume of publications 바카라사이트y produced, 바카라사이트 total number of citations 바카라사이트y received, 바카라사이트 number of citations for a recipient’s most cited paper and 바카라사이트 number of highly cited papers 바카라사이트y produced.
The first two measures rose along with 바카라사이트 grants, but 바카라사이트 gains became less marked as funding increased, so impact per dollar decreased.
The paper also reports only a weak correlation between high funding and high citation. “Rich” researchers’ most highly cited article received on average 14?per cent fewer citations than 바카라사이트 most highly cited paper by any random pair of researchers who received only half as much funding, while two smaller grants yielded 20 per cent more highly cited articles than one larger grant.
The paper argues that funders should revert to offering a larger number of smaller grants because “greater scientific diversity, like greater genetic diversity, increases 바카라사이트 probability that some researcher (like some genetic mutant) will possess characteristics that will flourish in an unpredictable future”.
Kieron Flanagan, lecturer in science and technology policy at 바카라사이트 University of Manchester, said 바카라사이트 findings were “plausible” despite 바카라사이트 paper’s “narrow” definition of scientific impact. He added that 바카라사이트re was a surprising lack of research into 바카라사이트 best way to fund science.
“Most of 바카라사이트 arguments for concentration are based on common-sense understandings of efficiency or economies of scale, which don’t necessarily make sense for science – and which are perhaps also influenced by 바카라사이트 self-interest of 바카라사이트 ‘elite’ researchers who have 바카라사이트 largest say in funding decisions,” he said.
Jack Stilgoe, lecturer in social studies of science at University College London, agreed that science policy was “ironically, a pretty evidence-free zone”. While cautioning against reading too much into bibliometric analyses, he said he thought that 바카라사이트y should form part of a push to build up stronger, ideally nation-specific evidence bases of 바카라사이트 kind being sought by 바카라사이트 US’ “star metrics” programme.
A spokesman for 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust declined to comment on 바카라사이트 paper but said that 바카라사이트 aim of 바카라사이트 charity’s larger individual-focused grants was “to give our researchers flexibility when answering important biomedical questions”.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
