IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v33y2006i10p702-712.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The top eight percent: Development of approved and rejected applicants for a prestigious grant in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Göran Melin
  • Rickard Danell

Abstract

In the final round of a call for applications for one of Sweden's most prestigious research grants, 40 relatively young and potentially promising researchers remained. Half were eventually approved; the other half were rejected. The differences between them in terms scientific merit were investigated. No particular differences were found. How did these two groups differ in terms of scientific development a few years later, with respect to publications, international co-authorships, further funding and spin-offs? Results show that the approved group has been more successful in many ways. A discussion is held regarding the effects of providing young promising researchers with sufficient funding, and the cost of failing to do so. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Göran Melin & Rickard Danell, 2006. "The top eight percent: Development of approved and rejected applicants for a prestigious grant in Sweden," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(10), pages 702-712, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:10:p:702-712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154306781778579
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah Seus & Susanne Bührer, 2022. "The evaluation of the Austrian START programme: an impact analysis of a research funding programme using a multi-method approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 673-698, June.
    2. Melin, Göran, 2007. "Reviewing applications by women - critical use of additive and reasoning evaluation methods," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 97, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    3. Conor O'Kane & James Cunningham & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Underpinning Strategic Behaviours and Posture of Principal Investigators in Transition/Uncertain Environments," Working paper serie RMT - Grenoble Ecole de Management hal-00794944, HAL.
    4. Adriana Bin & Sergio Salles-Filho & Ana Carolina Spatti & Jesús Pascual Mena-Chalco & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2022. "How much does a Ph.D. scholarship program impact an emerging economy research performance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6935-6960, December.
    5. Conor O'Kane & James Cunningham & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Underpinning Strategic Behaviours and Posture of Principal Investigators in Transition/Uncertain Environments," Working Papers hal-00794944, HAL.
    6. Tóth, Tamás & Demeter, Márton & Csuhai, Sándor & Major, Zsolt Balázs, 2024. "When career-boosting is on the line: Equity and inequality in grant evaluation, productivity, and the educational backgrounds of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions individual fellows in social sciences an," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    7. van den Besselaar, Peter, 2012. "Selection committee membership: Service or self-service," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 580-585.
    8. Youtie, Jan & Rogers, Juan & Heinze, Thomas & Shapira, Philip & Tang, Li, 2013. "Career-based influences on scientific recognition in the United States and Europe: Longitudinal evidence from curriculum vitae data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1341-1355.
    9. Walker, James & Brewster, Chris & Fontinha, Rita & Haak-Saheem, Washika & Benigni, Stefano & Lamperti, Fabio & Ribaudo, Dalila, 2022. "The unintended consequences of the pandemic on non-pandemic research activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    10. Lettice, Fiona & Smart, Palie & Baruch, Yehuda & Johnson, Mark, 2012. "Navigating the impact-innovation double hurdle: The case of a climate change research fund," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1048-1057.
    11. Kevin W. Boyack & Caleb Smith & Richard Klavans, 2018. "Toward predicting research proposal success," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 449-461, February.
    12. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2010. "A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 211-220.
    13. Stefan Hornbostel & Susan Böhmer & Bernd Klingsporn & Jörg Neufeld & Markus Ins, 2009. "Funding of young scientist and scientific excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(1), pages 171-190, April.
    14. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182.
    15. Adriana Bin & Sergio Salles-Filho & Luiza Maria Capanema & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2015. "What difference does it make? Impact of peer-reviewed scholarships on scientific production," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1167-1188, February.
    16. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:10:p:702-712. 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/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.