Limits...
How to Receive More Funding for Your Research? Get Connected to the Right People!

Ebadi A, Schiffauerova A - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: However, not everyone is successful in obtaining the necessary funds.According to the results, although past productivity of researchers positively affects the funding level, our findings highlight the significant role of networking and collaboration.In fact, our results show that in the quest for the research money it is more important how researchers build their collaboration network than what publications they produce and whether they are cited.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering (CIISE), Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

ABSTRACT
Funding has been viewed in the literature as one of the main determinants of scientific activities. Also, at an individual level, securing funding is one of the most important factors for a researcher, enabling him/her to carry out research projects. However, not everyone is successful in obtaining the necessary funds. The main objective of this work is to measure the effect of several important factors such as past productivity, scientific collaboration or career age of researchers, on the amount of funding that is allocated to them. For this purpose, the paper estimates a temporal non-linear multiple regression model. According to the results, although past productivity of researchers positively affects the funding level, our findings highlight the significant role of networking and collaboration. It was observed that being a member of large scientific teams and getting connected to productive researchers who have also a good control over the collaboration network and the flow of information can increase the chances for securing more money. In fact, our results show that in the quest for the research money it is more important how researchers build their collaboration network than what publications they produce and whether they are cited.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

a) 3-year average citation counts, 1996 to 2008, b) Normalized 3-year average citation counts versus normalized average funding, 1996 to 2008.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4519253&req=5

pone.0133061.g004: a) 3-year average citation counts, 1996 to 2008, b) Normalized 3-year average citation counts versus normalized average funding, 1996 to 2008.

Mentions: Fig 4a depicts the trend of 3-year average citation indicator over the period of 1996 to 2008. The overall trend follows an increasing polynomial curve of degree 4. As indicated by the dashed vertical lines, the trend can be divided into three regions. Except for the period of 2002 to 2005 for which we see an almost steady trend, in the other parts the average number of citations has increased. The slope is much steeper for the period of 1998 to 2002. Fig 4b shows the average citations received by the articles versus the average amount of funding allocated to the researchers labeled for different years. As it can be seen, it seems that no relation exists between funding and quality of the papers. Specifically for the period of 1996 to 2003 that is shaded in Fig 4b, although the annual average amounts of funding are comparable (see only a very slight increase in Fig 1) a considerable difference is seen in the amounts of citations. This preliminary result is quite in line with Fortin and Currie [42] who focused on three scientific disciplines and found a weak relation between the amount of NSERC funding allocated to an individual researcher and the output quality. Of course this is a preliminary observation at the aggregate level as we just focused on average annual funding and 3-year average number of citations. We will further investigate this issue by incorporating various variables of different types and performing statistical analysis at the individual level of researchers.


How to Receive More Funding for Your Research? Get Connected to the Right People!

Ebadi A, Schiffauerova A - PLoS ONE (2015)

a) 3-year average citation counts, 1996 to 2008, b) Normalized 3-year average citation counts versus normalized average funding, 1996 to 2008.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4519253&req=5

pone.0133061.g004: a) 3-year average citation counts, 1996 to 2008, b) Normalized 3-year average citation counts versus normalized average funding, 1996 to 2008.
Mentions: Fig 4a depicts the trend of 3-year average citation indicator over the period of 1996 to 2008. The overall trend follows an increasing polynomial curve of degree 4. As indicated by the dashed vertical lines, the trend can be divided into three regions. Except for the period of 2002 to 2005 for which we see an almost steady trend, in the other parts the average number of citations has increased. The slope is much steeper for the period of 1998 to 2002. Fig 4b shows the average citations received by the articles versus the average amount of funding allocated to the researchers labeled for different years. As it can be seen, it seems that no relation exists between funding and quality of the papers. Specifically for the period of 1996 to 2003 that is shaded in Fig 4b, although the annual average amounts of funding are comparable (see only a very slight increase in Fig 1) a considerable difference is seen in the amounts of citations. This preliminary result is quite in line with Fortin and Currie [42] who focused on three scientific disciplines and found a weak relation between the amount of NSERC funding allocated to an individual researcher and the output quality. Of course this is a preliminary observation at the aggregate level as we just focused on average annual funding and 3-year average number of citations. We will further investigate this issue by incorporating various variables of different types and performing statistical analysis at the individual level of researchers.

Bottom Line: However, not everyone is successful in obtaining the necessary funds.According to the results, although past productivity of researchers positively affects the funding level, our findings highlight the significant role of networking and collaboration.In fact, our results show that in the quest for the research money it is more important how researchers build their collaboration network than what publications they produce and whether they are cited.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering (CIISE), Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

ABSTRACT
Funding has been viewed in the literature as one of the main determinants of scientific activities. Also, at an individual level, securing funding is one of the most important factors for a researcher, enabling him/her to carry out research projects. However, not everyone is successful in obtaining the necessary funds. The main objective of this work is to measure the effect of several important factors such as past productivity, scientific collaboration or career age of researchers, on the amount of funding that is allocated to them. For this purpose, the paper estimates a temporal non-linear multiple regression model. According to the results, although past productivity of researchers positively affects the funding level, our findings highlight the significant role of networking and collaboration. It was observed that being a member of large scientific teams and getting connected to productive researchers who have also a good control over the collaboration network and the flow of information can increase the chances for securing more money. In fact, our results show that in the quest for the research money it is more important how researchers build their collaboration network than what publications they produce and whether they are cited.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus