Author
Listed:
- Marco Seeber
- Carlo Debernardi
- Fredrik Niclas Piro
Abstract
The European Research Council (ERC) is one of the most important research funding schemes of the European Union, supporting investigator-driven, excellent, frontier research. The ERC’s governing bodies have upheld the scheme’s ‘bottom-up’ approach, resisting any attempts to promote specific research topics. However, the selection process is not necessarily topic-neutral. Research has provided very limited evidence on the influence of a proposal’s research topic on its chances to be funded. This article addresses this gap by investigating what the research topics of ERC proposals are, how the proposals’ research topics vary across framework programs, countries, type of organization and grant, and whether a proposal’s research topic predicts the chances of being funded. We use state-of-the-art natural language processing techniques to examine the textual content of the abstract of 91,273 proposals for Starting, Consolidator, and Advanced Grants in the Seventh Framework Program (FP7) and Horizon 2020 (H2020)—that is, 95.3% of all the proposals, identifying 188 unique research topics. The proportion of proposals in each topic changed substantially from FP7 to H2020 programs, with one in four increasing or decreasing by more than 20% in relative terms. The research topic of a proposal is related to variation in success rates: 37.4% of proposals fall within topics that display significantly higher or lower chances of being funded. At the same time, the composition of the research topics of the funded proposals is similar to a hypothetical scenario in which topics did not affect success (80.8% overlap). The results suggest that the selection process on what is researched does not overturn the nature of ERC as a bottom-up program.
Suggested Citation
Marco Seeber & Carlo Debernardi & Fredrik Niclas Piro, 2026.
"The influence of research topics on ERC grant success: bottom-up, but not topic-neutral,"
Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 35, pages 1-001..
Handle:
RePEc:oup:rseval:v:35:y:2026:i::p:rvag001.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:35:y:2026:i::p:rvag001.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.