Effectiveness of research grants funded by European Research Council and Polish National Science Centre

被引:3
作者
Dziezyc, Maciej [1 ]
Kazienko, Przemyslaw [1 ]
机构
[1] Wroclaw Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Artificial Intelligence, PL-50370 Wroclaw, Poland
基金
日本科学技术振兴机构; 美国国家卫生研究院; 欧盟地平线“2020”; 中国国家自然科学基金; 新加坡国家研究基金会; 英国工程与自然科学研究理事会; 日本学术振兴会; 欧洲研究理事会; 美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
WEIG; Research efficiency; Research grant; Funding acknowledgement analysis; European research council; National science centre; PUBLICATIONS; ASSOCIATION; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.joi.2021101243
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
We propose WEIG - Wroclaw Effectiveness Indicator for Grants . This new scientometric measure is an aggregated quality measure of scientific papers published with the grant support divided by its budget. Several WEIG variations have been considered with respect to journal quality indicators like Impact Factor (IF), Article Influence Score (AIS), and Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile (IF%). Projects from two public agencies were analysed utilising the WEIG measures: European Research Council (ERC) and National Science Centre, Poland (NSC). The studies revealed that NSC grants are overall more effective than ERC ones, constantly 2-3 times more for Physical Sciences and Engineering (PE). There are four NSC panels distinctively more efficient than their counterparts in ERC: Mathematics (PE1), Fundamental Constituents of Matter (PE2), Computer Science and Informatics (PE6) and Universe Sciences (PE9). The most efficient NSC funding schemes are Etiuda, Preludium, and Harmonia. The higher average effectiveness of programmes aimed at young scientists has been observed: the ERC Starting Grants have greater effectiveness than Advanced Grants. Both agencies manage to keep overall efficiency regardless of increasing their budget over the years. Limitations of the proposed approach to assess project effectiveness, especially for Social Sciences and Humanities, are also discussed.
引用
收藏
页数:26
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   The impact of public research contracts on scientific productivity [J].
Alonso-Borrego, Cesar ;
Romero-Medina, Antonio ;
Sanchez-Mangas, Rocio .
APPLIED ECONOMICS, 2017, 49 (05) :417-432
[2]   Funding acknowledgements in scientific publications: A literature review [J].
Alvarez-Bornstein, Belen ;
Montesi, Michela .
RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2020, 29 (04) :469-488
[3]   Knowledge begets knowledge: university knowledge spillovers and the output of scientific papers from US Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) projects [J].
Audretsch, David B. ;
Link, Albert N. ;
van Hasselt, Martijn .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2019, 121 (03) :1367-1383
[4]  
Bergstrom C., 2007, COLL RES LIB NEWS, V68, P314, DOI [10.5860/crln.68.5.7804, DOI 10.5860/CRLN.68.5.7804]
[5]   Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications - the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts [J].
Butler, L .
RESEARCH POLICY, 2003, 32 (01) :143-155
[6]   Do performance-based research funding systems affect research production and impact? [J].
Checchi, Daniele ;
Malgarini, Marco ;
Sarlo, Scipione .
HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY, 2019, 73 (01) :45-69
[7]   The proof of the pudding: University responses to the European Research Council [J].
Cruz-Castro, Laura ;
Benitez-Amado, Alberto ;
Sanz-Menendez, Luis .
RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2016, 25 (04) :358-370
[8]  
Dzieyc M., 2018, JAKA JEST EFEKTYWNO, P7
[9]   A new approach to the metric of journals' scientific prestige: The SJR indicator [J].
Gonzalez-Pereira, Borja ;
Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. ;
Moya-Anegon, Felix .
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2010, 4 (03) :379-391
[10]   The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics [J].
Hicks, Diana ;
Wouters, Paul ;
Waltman, Ludo ;
de Rijcke, Sarah ;
Rafols, Ismael .
NATURE, 2015, 520 (7548) :429-431