Adrian Barnett, Tony Blakely, Mengyao Liu, Luke Garland, Philip Clarke
{"title":"赢得资助对研究人员工作效率的影响--随机试验的结果","authors":"Adrian Barnett, Tony Blakely, Mengyao Liu, Luke Garland, Philip Clarke","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of winning funding on researcher productivity, results from a randomized trial\",\"authors\":\"Adrian Barnett, Tony Blakely, Mengyao Liu, Luke Garland, Philip Clarke\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/scipol/scae045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae045\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
资助科学的投资回报很少得到准确衡量。以往对资助收益的估算采用的是观察性研究,包括回归不连续设计。2013年,新西兰卫生研究委员会开始采用修改后的抽签方式发放资助,在最初的同行评审阶段,对入围的申请者随机发放资助。这样,我们就可以采用随机实验研究设计,比较获得资助与未获资助者的研究成果。分析包括 88 名研究人员,对他们进行了平均 3.8 年的跟踪调查。获得资助的比率(和 95% 可信区间 (CI))为:发表论文 0.95(95% CI 0.67 至 1.39),引用论文 1.06(95% CI 0.79 至 1.43),这表明资助对研究成果没有明显影响。更广泛地使用资助抽签可以提供研究资助效益的可靠估计,从而更好地为科学政策提供信息。
The impact of winning funding on researcher productivity, results from a randomized trial
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.
期刊介绍:
Science and Public Policy is a leading refereed, international journal on public policies for science, technology and innovation, and on their implications for other public policies. It covers basic, applied, high, low, and any other types of S&T, and rich or poorer countries. It is read in around 70 countries, in universities (teaching and research), government ministries and agencies, consultancies, industry and elsewhere.