探索、开发和资助的成功:来自中国青年科学基金资助的青年科学家的证据

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Journal of Informetrics Pub Date : 2024-01-06 DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2024.101492
Liying Guo, Yang Wang, Meiling Li
{"title":"探索、开发和资助的成功:来自中国青年科学基金资助的青年科学家的证据","authors":"Liying Guo,&nbsp;Yang Wang,&nbsp;Meiling Li","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Scientists’ choice of research questions is often shaped by an “essential tension” between exploring new or risky ideas and exploiting conventional wisdoms. However, we still lack understanding regarding the association between exploration, exploitation, and funding success, which is a crucial aspect of career development for junior scientists in today’s highly competitive environment. In this study, we adopt a systematic approach to analyze the career histories of over 20,000 junior scientists supported by the Chinese Young Scientists Fund. We quantitatively assess the level of exploration during the Young Scientists Fund cycle using two approaches, and focus on the association of exploration on securing subsequent funding. Despite the positive relationship between exploring new topics and novelty, our findings reveal that junior scientists who choose to explore new research topics in the first funding cycle face significantly lower chances of obtaining subsequent funding. Additionally, among those who do secure subsequent funding, individuals who engage in exploratory research in the first funding cycle tend to wait longer. Furthermore, our study examines the </span>predictive power of various observed variables at the individual level in predicting funding success, finding modest predictive power. Overall, this work sheds light on the underlying patterns of individual careers and has policy implications in supporting junior scientists engaged in exploratory research. By unraveling the dynamics between exploration, exploitation, and funding success, our study offers valuable insights to nurture early career researchers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploration, exploitation and funding success: Evidence from junior scientists supported by the Chinese Young Scientists Fund\",\"authors\":\"Liying Guo,&nbsp;Yang Wang,&nbsp;Meiling Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101492\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>Scientists’ choice of research questions is often shaped by an “essential tension” between exploring new or risky ideas and exploiting conventional wisdoms. However, we still lack understanding regarding the association between exploration, exploitation, and funding success, which is a crucial aspect of career development for junior scientists in today’s highly competitive environment. In this study, we adopt a systematic approach to analyze the career histories of over 20,000 junior scientists supported by the Chinese Young Scientists Fund. We quantitatively assess the level of exploration during the Young Scientists Fund cycle using two approaches, and focus on the association of exploration on securing subsequent funding. Despite the positive relationship between exploring new topics and novelty, our findings reveal that junior scientists who choose to explore new research topics in the first funding cycle face significantly lower chances of obtaining subsequent funding. Additionally, among those who do secure subsequent funding, individuals who engage in exploratory research in the first funding cycle tend to wait longer. Furthermore, our study examines the </span>predictive power of various observed variables at the individual level in predicting funding success, finding modest predictive power. Overall, this work sheds light on the underlying patterns of individual careers and has policy implications in supporting junior scientists engaged in exploratory research. By unraveling the dynamics between exploration, exploitation, and funding success, our study offers valuable insights to nurture early career researchers.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Informetrics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Informetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000051\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Informetrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000051","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学家对研究问题的选择往往受制于探索新想法或冒险想法与利用传统智慧之间的 "基本矛盾"。然而,我们仍然缺乏对探索、利用和资助成功之间关联的了解,而在当今竞争激烈的环境中,这是初级科学家职业发展的一个重要方面。在本研究中,我们采用系统的方法分析了中国青年科学基金资助的 20,000 多名青年科学家的职业发展史。我们采用两种方法对青年科学家基金周期内的探索水平进行了定量评估,并重点研究了探索与获得后续资助之间的关联。尽管探索新课题与新颖性之间存在正相关关系,但我们的研究结果显示,在第一个资助周期选择探索新研究课题的青年科学家获得后续资助的几率明显较低。此外,在那些获得后续资助的科学家中,在第一个资助周期从事探索性研究的人往往需要等待更长的时间。此外,我们的研究还考察了个人层面的各种观测变量在预测资助成功方面的预测能力,结果发现预测能力并不高。总之,这项研究揭示了个人职业生涯的基本模式,对支持初级科学家从事探索性研究具有政策意义。通过揭示探索、利用和资助成功之间的动态关系,我们的研究为培养早期职业研究人员提供了宝贵的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploration, exploitation and funding success: Evidence from junior scientists supported by the Chinese Young Scientists Fund

Scientists’ choice of research questions is often shaped by an “essential tension” between exploring new or risky ideas and exploiting conventional wisdoms. However, we still lack understanding regarding the association between exploration, exploitation, and funding success, which is a crucial aspect of career development for junior scientists in today’s highly competitive environment. In this study, we adopt a systematic approach to analyze the career histories of over 20,000 junior scientists supported by the Chinese Young Scientists Fund. We quantitatively assess the level of exploration during the Young Scientists Fund cycle using two approaches, and focus on the association of exploration on securing subsequent funding. Despite the positive relationship between exploring new topics and novelty, our findings reveal that junior scientists who choose to explore new research topics in the first funding cycle face significantly lower chances of obtaining subsequent funding. Additionally, among those who do secure subsequent funding, individuals who engage in exploratory research in the first funding cycle tend to wait longer. Furthermore, our study examines the predictive power of various observed variables at the individual level in predicting funding success, finding modest predictive power. Overall, this work sheds light on the underlying patterns of individual careers and has policy implications in supporting junior scientists engaged in exploratory research. By unraveling the dynamics between exploration, exploitation, and funding success, our study offers valuable insights to nurture early career researchers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Informetrics
Journal of Informetrics Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.20%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Journal of Informetrics (JOI) publishes rigorous high-quality research on quantitative aspects of information science. The main focus of the journal is on topics in bibliometrics, scientometrics, webometrics, patentometrics, altmetrics and research evaluation. Contributions studying informetric problems using methods from other quantitative fields, such as mathematics, statistics, computer science, economics and econometrics, and network science, are especially encouraged. JOI publishes both theoretical and empirical work. In general, case studies, for instance a bibliometric analysis focusing on a specific research field or a specific country, are not considered suitable for publication in JOI, unless they contain innovative methodological elements.
期刊最新文献
Impact of gender composition of academic teams on disruptive output When career-boosting is on the line: Equity and inequality in grant evaluation, productivity, and the educational backgrounds of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions individual fellows in social sciences and humanities A multiple k-means cluster ensemble framework for clustering citation trajectories Does open data have the potential to improve the response of science to public health emergencies? Does the handling time of scientific papers relate to their academic impact and social attention? Evidence from Nature, Science, and PNAS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1