IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v51y2025i6p1042-1050..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of winning funding on researcher productivity, results from a randomized trial

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian Barnett
  • Tony Blakely
  • Mengyao Liu
  • Luke Garland
  • Philip Clarke

Abstract

The return on investment of funding science has rarely been accurately measured. Previous estimates of the benefits of funding have used observational studies, including regression discontinuity designs. In 2013, the Health Research Council of New Zealand began awarding funding using a modified lottery, with an initial peer review stage followed by funding at random for short-listed applicants. This allowed us to compare research outputs between those awarded funding or not using a randomized experimental study design. The analysis included eighty-eight researchers who were followed for an average of 3.8 years of follow-up. The rate ratios (and 95 per cent credible intervals (CI)) for funding were 0.95 (95 per cent CI 0.67 to 1.39) for publications and 1.06 (95 per cent CI 0.79 to 1.43) for citations, showing no clear impact of funding on research outputs. The wider use of funding lotteries could provide robust estimates of the benefits of research funding to better inform science policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian Barnett & Tony Blakely & Mengyao Liu & Luke Garland & Philip Clarke, 2025. "The impact of winning funding on researcher productivity, results from a randomized trial," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(6), pages 1042-1050.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2025:i:6:p:1042-1050.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scae045
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:51:y:2025:i:6:p:1042-1050.. 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.