IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/cvngq.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Research equity: Incentivizing high-risk basic research with market mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Ellgen, Clifford
  • Kang, Dominique

Abstract

Innovation in basic research is vital to scientific progress and technological development; however, such research finds insufficient support in the current research environment. To stimulate high-risk, high-reward basic research, this paper proposes a “research equity” funding model in which funders—such as government agencies and philanthropies—would pay researchers and institutions for completed research: The more valuable the research, the greater the reward. The valuation of completed research could be done with a novel “chess rating” method: A peer reviewer would be presented with a pair of research papers and would decide which of the two is of greater value, and a large number of comparisons would produce a numerical rating to inform payment. Payment based on research value would enable many of the qualities found in healthy markets. Initial capital for basic research would be provided by research institutions, which would be financially incentivized to invest in a diverse body of basic research that includes both low-risk, conservative research and high-risk, innovative research. Institutions would be motivated to demonstrate the value of completed research in their portfolios, which may accelerate recognition of important results. By motivating researchers and institutions to produce and promote valuable research, the research equity model could stimulate more rapid scientific discovery and progress. Notably, the research equity model could coexist with grant funding.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellgen, Clifford & Kang, Dominique, 2021. "Research equity: Incentivizing high-risk basic research with market mechanisms," SocArXiv cvngq, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:cvngq
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/cvngq
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/616e06ee1cedef000d182aea/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/cvngq?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. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Kevin Gross & Carl T Bergstrom, 2019. "Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-15, January.
    5. Misty L. Heggeness & Donna K. Ginther & Maria I. Larenas & Frances D. Carter-Johnson, 2018. "The Impact of Postdoctoral Fellowships on a Future Independent Career in Federally Funded Biomedical Research," NBER Working Papers 24508, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Monya Baker, 2016. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7604), pages 452-454, May.
    7. Link, Albert N. & Swann, Christopher A. & Bozeman, Barry, 2008. "A time allocation study of university faculty," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 363-374, August.
    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. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Working Papers 26889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 117-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt & Anna Strauss, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, April.
    4. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    6. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    7. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    8. Nicolas Carayol & Emeric Henry & Marianne Lanoë, 2020. "Stimulating Peer Effects? Evidence from a Research Cluster Policy," Working Papers hal-03874261, HAL.
    9. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    10. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    11. Kyle Siler & Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2020. "The diverse niches of megajournals: Specialism within generalism," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(7), pages 800-816, July.
    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. Oliver Braganza, 2020. "A simple model suggesting economically rational sample-size choice drives irreproducibility," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Richard T. Carson & Joshua Graff Zivin & Jordan J. Louviere & Sally Sadoff & Jeffrey G. Shrader, 2022. "The Risk of Caution: Evidence from an Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 9042-9060, December.
    15. Albert Banal-Estañol & Ines Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2016. "Key Success Drivers in Public Research Grants: Funding the Seeds of Radical Innovation in Academia?," CESifo Working Paper Series 5852, CESifo.
    16. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    17. 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.
    18. Marco Ottaviani, 2020. "Grantmaking," Working Papers 672, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    19. 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.
    20. Balietti, Stefano & Riedl, Christoph, 2021. "Incentives, competition, and inequality in markets for creative production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:socarx:cvngq. 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://arabixiv.org .

    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.