IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i11d10.1007_s11192-021-04131-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reply to the comment by Heyard et al. titled “Imaginary carrot or effective fertiliser? A rejoinder on funding and productivity”

Author

Listed:
  • Gregoire Mariethoz

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Frédéric Herman

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Amelie Dreiss

    (University of Lausanne)

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregoire Mariethoz & Frédéric Herman & Amelie Dreiss, 2021. "Reply to the comment by Heyard et al. titled “Imaginary carrot or effective fertiliser? A rejoinder on funding and productivity”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9339-9342, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:11:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04131-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04131-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04131-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04131-6?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. Gregoire Mariethoz & Frédéric Herman & Amelie Dreiss, 2021. "The imaginary carrot: no correlation between raising funds and research productivity in geosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2401-2407, March.
    2. Declan Butler, 2013. "Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7442), pages 433-435, March.
    3. 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.
    4. David Kaplan & Nicola Lacetera & Celia Kaplan, 2008. "Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-3, July.
    5. Elizabeth L. Pier & Markus Brauer & Amarette Filut & Anna Kaatz & Joshua Raclaw & Mitchell J. Nathan & Cecilia E. Ford & Molly Carnes, 2018. "Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(12), pages 2952-2957, March.
    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. 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.
    2. Donna K. Ginther & Misty L. Heggeness, 2020. "Administrative Discretion in Scientific Funding: Evidence from a Prestigious Postdoctoral Training Program," NBER Working Papers 26841, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Rachel Heyard & Tobias Philipp & Hanna Hottenrott, 2021. "Imaginary carrot or effective fertiliser? A rejoinder on funding and productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9333-9338, November.
    4. Ginther, Donna K. & Heggeness, Misty L., 2020. "Administrative discretion in scientific funding: Evidence from a prestigious postdoctoral training program✰," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    5. 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).
    6. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    7. Norbert L. W. Wilson & Lurleen M. Walters & Tara Wade & Kenesha Reynolds, 2024. "The distribution of competitive research grants from the National Institute for Food and Agriculture: A comparison of 1862 land grant universities, 1890 land grant universities, and other institutions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(1), pages 76-94, March.
    8. Elias Bouacida & Renaud Foucart, 2022. "Rituals of Reason," Working Papers 344119591, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    9. Jacqueline N. Lane & Ina Ganguli & Patrick Gaule & Eva Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2021. "Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1215-1244, June.
    10. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    11. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    12. Kyle R. Myers, 2022. "Some Tradeoffs of Competition in Grant Contests," Papers 2207.02379, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    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. 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.
    15. Eric Libby & Leon Glass, 2010. "The Calculus of Committee Composition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-8, September.
    16. Demir, Selcuk Besir, 2018. "Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1296-1311.
    17. 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).
    18. Hladchenko, Myroslava & Moed, Henk F., 2021. "The effect of publication traditions and requirements in research assessment and funding policies upon the use of national journals in 28 post-socialist countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    19. Marielle Non & Jeroen van Honk & Vince van Houten & Inge van der Weijden & Thed van Leeuwen, 2022. "Getting off to a flying start? The effects of an early-career international mobility grant on scientific performance," CPB Discussion Paper 443, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    20. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 117-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:11:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04131-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.