Peer review-based selection decisions in individual research funding, applicants' publication strategies and performance: The case of the ERC Starting Grants

This article investigates the dependence of funding decisions on past publication performance amongst applicants for the Starting Grants Programme, offered by the European Research Council. Publication data will be contrasted with individual publication strategies generated by an online survey. The empirical results will be discussed against the background of evaluation studies on similar funding schemes for young scientists (Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds; Bornmann and Daniel 2007, Individual Grant for the Advancement of Research Leaders: Melin and Danell 2006, and the Emmy Noether-Programme (ENP): Hornbostel et al. 2009, Neufeld and von Ins 2011]. Most of these studies focus on the respective peer review system by bibliometrically investigating its ability to select the 'best' applicants for funding, although they come to different results. However, an overview of the studies reveals that potential differences in the past publication performance between approved and rejected applicants depend not only on selection decisions (or the peer review) but also on further programme-specific factors such as finiteness/openness of the overall budget and the level of self-or 'pre-selection' amongst potential applicants. As the European Research Council Starting Grants is a highly prestigious international funding programme for young scientists with demanding eligibility requirements and low acceptance rates, it constitutes a unique case study for further investigating the relationship between peer review-based selection decisions and applicants' publication performance.