IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v48y2021i5p635-648..html

Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Ayoubi
  • Michele Pezzoni
  • Fabiana Visentin

Abstract

Public funding agencies aim to fund novel breakthrough research to promote the radical scientific discoveries of tomorrow. Identifying the profiles of scientists being financed to pursue their research is therefore crucial. This paper shows that the funding process is not always awarding the most novel scientists. Exploiting rich data on all applications to a leading Swiss research funding program, we find that novel scientists have a higher probability of applying for funds than non-novel scientists, but they get on average lower ratings by grant evaluators and have fewer chances of being funded. We discuss the implications for the allocation of scientific research spending.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:5:p:635-648.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scab031
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    2. Liang Zhao & Lifei Xu & Ling Li & Jing Hu & Lin Mu, 2022. "Can Inbound Tourism Improve Regional Ecological Efficiency? An Empirical Analysis from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Linming Xu & Baicun Li & Shuo Chen & Meijuan Li, 2025. "Research productivity and novelty under different funding models: evidence from NIH-funded research projects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(7), pages 3743-3771, July.
    4. Corinna Ghirelli & Enkelejda Havari & Elena Meroni & Stefano Verzillo, 2023. "The long-term causal effects of winning an ERC grant," Working Papers 2313, Banco de España.
    5. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    6. Manoj Kumar Verma & Daud Khan & Mayank Yuvaraj, 2023. "Scientometric assessment of funded scientometrics and bibliometrics research (2011–2021)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4305-4320, August.
    7. Athanasia Lampraki & Christos Kolympiris & Thorsten Grohsjean & Linus Dahlander, 2024. "The new needs friends: Simmelian strangers and the selection of novelty," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 716-744, April.
    8. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    9. Zhang, Wanshu & Wang, Xuefeng & Chen, Hongshu & Liu, Jia, 2024. "The impact of early debut on scientists: Evidence from the Young Scientists Fund of the NSFC," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    10. Armen E. Petrosyan, 2024. "Hunting for the Elusive (the Appraisal of Research as a Conundrum)," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 2956-2987, March.
    11. Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Kyle Higham & Orion Penner, 2022. "Scientific rewards for biomedical specialization are large and persistent," Working Papers 19, Chair of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy.
    12. Zsolt Tibor Kosztyán & Beáta Fehérvölgyi & Tibor Csizmadia & Kinga Kerekes, 2021. "Investigating collaborative and mobility networks: reflections on the core missions of universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3551-3564, April.
    13. Jianwei Zhang & Heng Li & Guoxin Jiao & Jiayi Wang & Jingjing Li & Mengzhen Li & Haining Jiang, 2022. "Spatial Pattern of Technological Innovation in the Yangtze River Delta Region and Its Impact on Water Pollution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-20, June.
    14. Tomas Hellström & Merle Jacob, 2025. "Excellent prospects: arguing ‘value-added’ in research excellence proposals," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Min Qian & Zhenpeng Cheng & Zhengwen Wang & Dingyi Qi, 2022. "What Affects Rural Ecological Environment Governance Efficiency? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-19, May.
    16. Sarah Guillou & Basheer Kalash & Lionel Nesta & Michele Pezzoni & Evens Salies & Marc-Antoine Faure, 2023. "Impact de la nature du financement de la recherche sur ses résultats," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-04026916, HAL.
    17. Juan Hu & Chengjin Ma & Chen Li, 2022. "Can Green Innovation Improve Regional Environmental Carrying Capacity? An Empirical Analysis from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-15, October.
    18. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2024. "Reluctance to pursue breakthrough research: A signaling explanation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    19. Axel Philipps, 2022. "Research funding randomly allocated? A survey of scientists’ views on peer review and lottery," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 365-377.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:48:y:2021:i:5:p:635-648.. 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.