IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/7mhwa_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The PRINWINNERS dataset: Inequalities in Italian competitive research funding

Author

Listed:
  • Tomaselli, Venera
  • Spinello, Andrea Orazio

    (National Research Council of Italy (CNR))

  • Cantone, Giulio Giacomo

Abstract

The adoption of competitive grants for allocating funds for public research is based on the assumption that competition enhances the efficiency of public expenditure, promoting higher quality in research processes and outcomes. However, literature on the topic has pointed out the drawbacks of the competitive model. This analysis focuses on the indirect effect of competitive funding in enhancing inequalities among academic institutions and disciplinary macro-sectors in Italy. The study presents the PRINWINNERS dataset, encompassing approximately 6,500 research projects funded to over 18,500 recipients across 4 rounds of the PRIN programme from 2017 to 2022, including the extraordinary NRRP-labelled round in 2022. The general PRIN regulation sets an equitable distribution of funds among STEM, Life Sciences, and Social Sciences, but such equity is not always reflected within these areas. Adopting the proportion of tenures as benchmark, then some disciplinary macro-sectors have benefited more from competition than others within the same area. Variance is found in the median funding for recipient across academic institutions. Universities specialised in bio-medical or technological research receive high median fundings whereas those specialised in social sciences receive low with Bocconi University being a noteworthy outlier. Almost half of the budget of the 2022 NRRP round has been allocated in Southern universities. Findings suggest that disciplinary specialisation does not predict sufficiently well the allocations and call for including network metrics in future studies on the drivers of inequalities in research funding.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomaselli, Venera & Spinello, Andrea Orazio & Cantone, Giulio Giacomo, 2025. "The PRINWINNERS dataset: Inequalities in Italian competitive research funding," OSF Preprints 7mhwa_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:7mhwa_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/7mhwa_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/67f5630af7c620f977b25ad2/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/7mhwa_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grit Laudel, 2006. "The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(7), pages 489-504, August.
    2. Benedetto Lepori & Peter van den Besselaar & Michael Dinges & Barend van der Meulen & Bianca Potì & Emanuela Reale & Stig Slipersaeter & Jean Theves, 2007. "Indicators for comparative analysis of public project funding: concepts, implementation and evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 243-255, December.
    3. Giulio Giacomo Cantone, 2024. "How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systemic design for the model of measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4937-4982, August.
    4. repec:osf:metaar:hva4p_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. van den Besselaar, Peter & Heyman, Ulf & Sandström, Ulf, 2017. "Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 905-918.
    6. Cantone, Giulio Giacomo, 2024. "How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systematic, yet critical, review," MetaArXiv hva4p, Center for Open Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tanel Hirv, 2022. "The interplay of the size of the research system, ways of collaboration, level, and method of funding in determining bibliometric outputs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1295-1316, March.
    2. Thomas, Duncan Andrew & Ramos-Vielba, Irene, 2022. "Reframing study of research(er) funding towards configurations and trails," SocArXiv uty2v, Center for Open Science.
    3. Yunhan Liu & Xia Xu & Shuqing Li, 2025. "Understanding of evolutionary features in the library and information science with interdisciplinary network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 781-808, February.
    4. Domenico A. Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo & Fiorenzo Franceschini, 2020. "Short-term effects of non-competitive funding to single academic researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1261-1280, June.
    5. repec:osf:socarx:cvngq_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Mario Coccia & Greta Falavigna & Alessandro Manello, 2015. "The impact of hybrid public and market-oriented financing mechanisms on the scientific portfolio and performances of public research labs: a scientometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 151-168, January.
    7. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    8. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    9. Nicolas Battard & Paul Donnelly & Vincent Mangematin, 2017. "Organizational Responses to Institutional Pressures: Reconfiguration of Spaces in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies," Post-Print hal-01745508, HAL.
    10. 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.
    11. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Carmen Osuna & Laura Cruz Castro & Luis Sanz Menéndez, 2010. "Knocking down some Assumptions about the Effects of Evaluation Systems on Publications," Working Papers 1010, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    13. 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.
    14. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    15. Simen G. Enger, 2017. "Closed clubs: Cumulative advantages and participation in Horizon 2020," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20170703, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    16. Elizabeth Troncoso & Francisco Ganga-Contreras & Margarita Briceño, 2022. "Incentive Policies for Scientific Publications in the State Universities of Chile," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, June.
    17. Andreassen, Hege K. & Kjekshus, Lars Erik & Tjora, Aksel, 2015. "Survival of the project: A case study of ICT innovation in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 62-69.
    18. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    19. Timur Gareev & Irina Peker, 2023. "Quantity versus quality in publication activity: knowledge production at the regional level," Papers 2311.08830, arXiv.org.
    20. Dangzhi Zhao, 2010. "Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 293-306, August.
    21. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, 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:osf:osfxxx:7mhwa_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.