IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v16y2022i1s1751157721001140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of research grants funded by European Research Council and Polish National Science Centre

Author

Listed:
  • Dzieżyc, Maciej
  • Kazienko, Przemysław

Abstract

We propose WEIG – Wroclaw Effectiveness Indicator for Grants. This new scientometric measure is an aggregated quality measure of scientific papers published with the grant support divided by its budget. Several WEIG variations have been considered with respect to journal quality indicators like Impact Factor (IF), Article Influence Score (AIS), and Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile (IF%). Projects from two public agencies were analysed utilising the WEIG measures: European Research Council (ERC) and National Science Centre, Poland (NSC). The studies revealed that NSC grants are overall more effective than ERC ones, constantly 2–3 times more for Physical Sciences and Engineering (PE). There are four NSC panels distinctively more efficient than their counterparts in ERC: Mathematics (PE1), Fundamental Constituents of Matter (PE2), Computer Science and Informatics (PE6) and Universe Sciences (PE9). The most efficient NSC funding schemes are Etiuda, Preludium, and Harmonia. The higher average effectiveness of programmes aimed at young scientists has been observed: the ERC Starting Grants have greater effectiveness than Advanced Grants. Both agencies manage to keep overall efficiency regardless of increasing their budget over the years. Limitations of the proposed approach to assess project effectiveness, especially for Social Sciences and Humanities, are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Dzieżyc, Maciej & Kazienko, Przemysław, 2022. "Effectiveness of research grants funded by European Research Council and Polish National Science Centre," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:16:y:2022:i:1:s1751157721001140
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101243
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157721001140
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101243?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moed, Henk F., 2010. "Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 265-277.
    2. Erjia Yan & Chaojiang Wu & Min Song, 2018. "The funding factor: a cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 369-384, April.
    3. Marlie MacLean & Catherine Davies & Grant Lewison & Joe Anderson, 1998. "Evaluating the research activity and impact of funding agencies," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 7-16, April.
    4. Fengqing Zhang & Erjia Yan & Xin Niu & Yongjun Zhu, 2018. "Joint modeling of the association between NIH funding and its three primary outcomes: patents, publications, and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 591-602, October.
    5. Butler, Linda, 2003. "Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications--the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 143-155, January.
    6. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    7. Klemiński, Rajmund & Kazienko, Przemyslaw & Kajdanowicz, Tomasz, 2021. "Where should I publish? Heterogeneous, networks-based prediction of paper’s citation success," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    8. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    9. González-Pereira, Borja & Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2010. "A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 379-391.
    10. Audretsch, David & Link, Albert & van Hasselt, Martijn, 2019. "Knowledge Begets Knowledge: Knowledge Spillovers and the Output of Scientific Papers from U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Projects," UNCG Economics Working Papers 19-12, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    11. Jue Wang & Philip Shapira, 2011. "Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 563-586, June.
    12. César Alonso-Borrego & Antonio Romero-Medina & Rocío Sánchez-Mangas, 2017. "The impact of public research contracts on scientific productivity," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(5), pages 417-432, January.
    13. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Aamir Raoof Memon, 2017. "CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 553-556, April.
    14. Liping Yu & Houqiang Yu, 2016. "Does the average JIF percentile make a difference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1979-1987, December.
    15. Munari, Federico & Toschi, Laura, 2021. "The impact of public funding on science valorisation: an analysis of the ERC Proof-of-Concept Programme," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    16. Koen Jonkers & Thomas Zacharewicz, 2016. "Research Performance Based Funding Systems: a Comparative Assessment," JRC Research Reports JRC101043, Joint Research Centre.
    17. Jacob, Brian A. & Lefgren, Lars, 2011. "The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1168-1177.
    18. 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.
    19. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan & van Leeuwen, Thed N. & Visser, Martijn S., 2013. "Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 272-285.
    20. David B. Audretsch & Albert N. Link & Martijn Hasselt, 2019. "Knowledge begets knowledge: university knowledge spillovers and the output of scientific papers from U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) projects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1367-1383, December.
    21. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    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. Hren, Darko & Pina, David G. & Norman, Christopher R. & Marušić, Ana, 2022. "What makes or breaks competitive research proposals? A mixed-methods analysis of research grant evaluation reports," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    2. Li, Heyang & Wu, Meijun & Wang, Yougui & Zeng, An, 2022. "Bibliographic coupling networks reveal the advantage of diversification in scientific projects," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    3. Nina Smirnova & Philipp Mayr, 2024. "Embedding models for supervised automatic extraction and classification of named entities in scientific acknowledgements," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 7261-7285, November.
    4. Sun, Zhuanlan & Liu, Sheng & Li, Yiwei & Ma, Chao, 2023. "Expedited editorial decision in COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).

    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. 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.
    2. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    3. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2022. "Methods to evaluate institutional responses to performance‐based research funding systems," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 615-634, September.
    4. Melika Mosleh & Saeed Roshani & Mario Coccia, 2022. "Scientific laws of research funding to support citations and diffusion of knowledge in life science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1931-1951, April.
    5. Saarela, Mirka & Kärkkäinen, Tommi, 2020. "Can we automate expert-based journal rankings? Analysis of the Finnish publication indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    6. Saarela, Mirka & Kärkkäinen, Tommi & Lahtonen, Tommi & Rossi, Tuomo, 2016. "Expert-based versus citation-based ranking of scholarly and scientific publication channels," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 693-718.
    7. Daniele Rotolo & Michael Hopkins & Nicola Grassano, 2023. "Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 50-66, January.
    8. Selcuk Besir Demir, 2018. "Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2053-2068, September.
    9. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "When research assessment exercises leave room for opportunistic behavior by the subjects under evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 830-840.
    10. Groen-Xu, Moqi & Bös, Gregor & Teixeira, Pedro A. & Voigt, Thomas & Knapp, Bernhard, 2023. "Short-term incentives of research evaluations: Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    11. Pajić, Dejan, 2015. "On the stability of citation-based journal rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 990-1006.
    12. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, May.
    13. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele, 2023. "Does grant funding foster research impact? Evidence from France," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    14. Walters, William H., 2017. "Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 730-744.
    15. Dejian Yu & Wanru Wang & Shuai Zhang & Wenyu Zhang & Rongyu Liu, 2017. "A multiple-link, mutually reinforced journal-ranking model to measure the prestige of journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 521-542, April.
    16. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    17. Mingkun Wei, 2020. "Research on impact evaluation of open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1027-1049, February.
    18. 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).
    19. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:infome:v:16:y:2022:i:1:s1751157721001140. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    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.