• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

研究资助的规模、积累与绩效:审视规模对卓越中心的作用。

Size, Accumulation and Performance for Research Grants: Examining the Role of Size for Centres of Excellence.

作者信息

Bloch Carter, Schneider Jesper W, Sinkjær Thomas

机构信息

Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle' 7, 8000 Aarhus C., Denmark.

Danish National Research Foundation, Holbergsgade 14, 1, 1057 Copenhagen K., Denmark.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2016 Feb 10;11(2):e0147726. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147726. eCollection 2016.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0147726
PMID:26862907
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4749179/
Abstract

The present paper examines the relation between size, accumulation and performance for research grants, where we examine the relation between grant size for Centres of Excellence (CoE) funded by the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF) and various ex post research performance measures, including impact and shares of highly cited articles. We examine both the relation between size and performance and also how performance for CoEs evolves over the course of grant periods. In terms of dynamics, it appears that performance over the grant period (i.e. 10 years) is falling for the largest CoEs, while it is increasing for those among the smallest half. Overall, multivariate econometric analysis finds evidence that performance is increasing in grant size and over time. In both cases, the relation appears to be non-linear, suggesting that there is a point at which performance peaks. The CoEs have also been very successful in securing additional funding, which can be viewed as a 'cumulative effect' of center grants. In terms of new personnel, the far majority of additional funding is spent on early career researchers, hence, this accumulation would appear to have a 'generational' dimension, allowing for scientific expertise to be passed on to an increasing number of younger researchers.

摘要

本文研究了研究经费的规模、积累与绩效之间的关系,具体而言,我们考察了由丹麦国家研究基金会(DNRF)资助的卓越中心(CoE)的经费规模与各种事后研究绩效指标之间的关系,这些指标包括影响力和高被引文章的占比。我们不仅考察了规模与绩效之间的关系,还研究了卓越中心的绩效在资助期内是如何演变的。从动态角度来看,在资助期(即10年)内,规模最大的卓越中心的绩效似乎在下降,而规模最小的那一半卓越中心的绩效则在上升。总体而言,多变量计量经济学分析发现,有证据表明绩效会随着经费规模的增加以及时间的推移而提高。在这两种情况下,这种关系似乎都是非线性的,这表明存在一个绩效达到峰值的点。卓越中心在获得额外资金方面也非常成功,这可以被视为中心资助的一种“累积效应”。就新人员而言,绝大多数额外资金都用于早期职业研究人员,因此,这种积累似乎具有“代际”维度,使得科学专业知识能够传递给越来越多的年轻研究人员。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b6d2/4749179/dee951a8e476/pone.0147726.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b6d2/4749179/3f05410ba6a1/pone.0147726.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b6d2/4749179/dee951a8e476/pone.0147726.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b6d2/4749179/3f05410ba6a1/pone.0147726.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b6d2/4749179/dee951a8e476/pone.0147726.g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Size, Accumulation and Performance for Research Grants: Examining the Role of Size for Centres of Excellence.研究资助的规模、积累与绩效:审视规模对卓越中心的作用。
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 10;11(2):e0147726. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147726. eCollection 2016.
2
Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.预测投资的生产力回报:美国国立心肺血液研究所三十年的同行评审、资助拨款及高被引论文发表情况
Circ Res. 2015 Jul 17;117(3):239-43. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.306830. Epub 2015 Jun 18.
3
Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding.大科学与小科学:科学影响力如何随资金投入而变化
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 19;8(6):e65263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065263. Print 2013.
4
Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis.基于研究内容领域的加拿大卫生研究院资助和人员奖项资助率的性别差异:一项回顾性分析。
PLoS Med. 2019 Oct 15;16(10):e1002935. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002935. eCollection 2019 Oct.
5
An output evaluation of a health research foundation's enhanced grant review process for new investigators.一项关于健康研究基金会针对新研究人员的强化资助评审流程的产出评估。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Jun 19;15(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0220-x.
6
A ten-year analysis of the research funding program of the orthopaedic trauma association.十年间骨科创伤协会研究基金项目分析。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Oct 2;95(19):e1421-6. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01627.
7
Getting funded in a highly fluctuating environment: Shifting from excellence to luck and timing.在波动剧烈的环境中获得资金:从卓越转向运气和时机。
PLoS One. 2022 Nov 7;17(11):e0277337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277337. eCollection 2022.
8
Profile and scientific output of researchers recipients of CNPq productivity grant in the field of medicine.获得巴西国家科学技术发展委员会(CNPq)医学领域生产力资助的研究人员简介及科研成果
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2019 Jun 3;65(5):682-690. doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.65.5.682.
9
Trends in funding for research on pain: a report on the National Institutes Of Health grant awards over the years 2003 to 2007.疼痛研究资金趋势:关于2003年至2007年美国国立卫生研究院资助奖项的报告
J Pain. 2008 Dec;9(12):1077-87, 1087.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.09.008.
10
A correlation between National Institutes of Health funding and bibliometrics in neurosurgery.国立卫生研究院资助与神经外科学文献计量学的相关性。
World Neurosurg. 2014 Mar-Apr;81(3-4):468-72. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.11.013. Epub 2013 Nov 13.

引用本文的文献

1
The effectiveness of Japanese public funding to generate emerging topics in life science and medicine.日本公共资金在产生生命科学和医学新兴课题方面的有效性。
PLoS One. 2023 Aug 17;18(8):e0290077. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290077. eCollection 2023.
2
How large of a grant size is appropriate? Evidence from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.资助规模多大为宜?来自国家自然科学基金的证据。
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 25;17(2):e0264070. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264070. eCollection 2022.
3
Conceptualising centres of excellence: a scoping review of global evidence.

本文引用的文献

1
Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding.大科学与小科学:科学影响力如何随资金投入而变化
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 19;8(6):e65263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065263. Print 2013.
2
Scaling properties of European research units.欧洲研究单位的规模属性。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Aug 11;106(32):13160-3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903190106. Epub 2009 Jul 22.
3
The Ortega Hypothesis: Citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress.奥尔特加假说:引文分析表明只有少数科学家对科学进步做出贡献。
概念化卓越中心:全球证据的范围综述。
BMJ Open. 2022 Feb 7;12(2):e050419. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050419.
Science. 1972 Oct 27;178(4059):368-75. doi: 10.1126/science.178.4059.368.
4
The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered.科学中的马太效应。对科学的奖励和交流系统进行了探讨。
Science. 1968 Jan 5;159(3810):56-63.