ESMT Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 4;14(1):e0208384. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208384. eCollection 2019.
Crowdfunding has gained traction as a mechanism to raise resources for entrepreneurial and artistic projects, yet there is little systematic evidence on the potential of crowdfunding for scientific research. We first briefly review prior research on crowdfunding and give an overview of dedicated platforms for crowdfunding research. We then analyze data from over 700 campaigns on the largest dedicated platform, Experiment.com. Our descriptive analysis provides insights regarding the creators seeking funding, the projects they are seeking funding for, and the campaigns themselves. We then examine how these characteristics relate to fundraising success. The findings highlight important differences between crowdfunding and traditional funding mechanisms for research, including high use by students and other junior investigators but also relatively small project size. Students and junior investigators are more likely to succeed than senior scientists, and women have higher success rates than men. Conventional signals of quality-including scientists' prior publications-have little relationship with funding success, suggesting that the crowd may apply different decision criteria than traditional funding agencies. Our results highlight significant opportunities for crowdfunding in the context of science while also pointing towards unique challenges. We relate our findings to research on the economics of science and on crowdfunding, and we discuss connections with other emerging mechanisms to involve the public in scientific research.
众筹作为一种为创业和艺术项目筹集资源的机制已经引起了关注,但关于众筹在科学研究中的潜力的系统证据却很少。我们首先简要回顾了众筹的前期研究,并对专门的众筹研究平台进行了概述。然后,我们分析了最大的专门平台 Experiment.com 上的 700 多个活动的数据。我们的描述性分析提供了有关寻求资金的创作者、他们正在寻求资金的项目以及这些活动本身的见解。然后,我们研究了这些特征如何与筹款成功相关。研究结果突出了众筹与传统研究资金机制之间的重要差异,包括学生和其他初级研究人员的高度使用,但项目规模也相对较小。学生和初级研究人员比高级科学家更有可能成功,女性的成功率也高于男性。传统的质量信号——包括科学家之前的出版物——与资金成功几乎没有关系,这表明大众可能会采用与传统资助机构不同的决策标准。我们的研究结果突出了众筹在科学背景下的重要机会,同时也指出了独特的挑战。我们将研究结果与科学经济学和众筹研究联系起来,并讨论了与其他新兴机制的联系,以让公众参与科学研究。