IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v48y2021i5p635-648..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    2. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    3. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    4. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 226-238.
    6. Trapido, Denis, 2015. "How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1488-1500.
    7. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    8. Paula E. Stephan, 2010. "The Economics of Science - Funding for Research," ICER Working Papers 12-2010, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    9. Ayoubi, Charles & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2017. "At the origins of learning: Absorbing knowledge flows from within the team," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 374-387.
    10. Ayoubi, Charles & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2019. "The important thing is not to win, it is to take part: What if scientists benefit from participating in research grant competitions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 84-97.
    11. Danielle Li, 2017. "Expertise versus Bias in Evaluation: Evidence from the NIH," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 60-92, April.
    12. Joshua M. Nicholson & John P. A. Ioannidis, 2012. "Conform and be funded," Nature, Nature, vol. 492(7427), pages 34-36, December.
    13. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    14. Elise S Brezis, 2007. "Focal randomisation: An optimal mechanism for the evaluation of R&D projects," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(10), pages 691-698, December.
    15. John P. A. Ioannidis, 2011. "Fund people not projects," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7366), pages 529-531, September.
    16. Hagemann Harald, 2019. "Impulses and Propagation Mechanisms in Equilibrium Business Cycles Theories: From Interwar Debates to DSGE “Consensus”," Working Papers halshs-02386344, HAL.
    17. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    18. Thijs Bol & Mathijs de Vaan & Arnout van de Rijt, 2018. "The Matthew effect in science funding," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(19), pages 4887-4890, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-04026916, HAL.
    13. 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.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    2. Wang, Jian & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2018. "Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1070-1083.
    3. Blandinieres, Florence & Pellens, Maikel, 2021. "Scientist's industry engagement and the research agenda: Evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    5. Ayoubi, Charles & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2019. "The important thing is not to win, it is to take part: What if scientists benefit from participating in research grant competitions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 84-97.
    6. Sotaro Shibayama & Deyun Yin & Kuniko Matsumoto, 2021. "Measuring novelty in science with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-16, July.
    7. Kyle Myers & Wei Yang Tham, 2023. "Money, Time, and Grant Design," Papers 2312.06479, arXiv.org.
    8. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    9. Sotaro Shibayama & Jian Wang, 2020. "Measuring originality in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 409-427, January.
    10. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    12. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    13. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    14. Pezzoni, Michele & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Visentin, Fabiana, 2022. "How fast is this novel technology going to be a hit? Antecedents predicting follow-on inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    15. Hou, Jianhua & Wang, Dongyi & Li, Jing, 2022. "A new method for measuring the originality of academic articles based on knowledge units in semantic networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    16. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2017. "The Important Thing is not to Win, it is to Take Part: What If Scientists Benefit from Participating in Competitive Grant Races?," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-27, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    17. Miguel Navascués & Costantino Budroni, 2019. "Theoretical research without projects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-35, March.
    18. 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," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-04026916, HAL.
    19. Osterloh, Margit & Frey, Bruno S., 2020. "How to avoid borrowed plumes in academia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    20. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    public funding; scientific research; novelty; selectivity; research evaluation;
    All these 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.