Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Competitive project funding and dynamic complex networks: evidence from Projects of National Interest (PRIN)

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to study the collaboration among researchers in a specific Italian program funding, the Projects of National Interest (PRIN), which supports the academic research. The paper uses two approaches to study the dynamic complex networks: first it identifies the observed distribution of links among researchers in the four areas of interest (chemistry, physics, economics and sociology) through distribution models, then it uses a stochastic model to understand how the links change over time. The analysis is based on large and unique dataset on 4322 researchers from 98 universities and research institutes that have been selected for PRIN allocation from 2000 to 2011. The originality of this work is that we have studied a competitive funding schemes through dynamic network analysis techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The h-index is a measure used to indicated the impact of a researcher based on how often his/her publications have been cited.

  2. With assortativity effect we mean the tendencies for researchers with high h-index to preferably be tied to other researchers with high h-index.

  3. In the models we include variables at a structural level, as well as also control variables.

  4. Markov process means that change probabilities (future) only depend on the current state of the network and not on past configurations.

  5. Also called evaluation function.

  6. This because over time the government’ guidelines about collaborations are changed.

  7. If we had calculated the cluster coefficient per year it would have the value 1 because within each project everybody is linked to everyone else.

  8. Centrality indices were calculated (degree, betweenness and closeness centrality) and we noticed that scientists with lower centrality indices were theoretical physicists.

  9. The model was built selecting only some effects which reasonably drive the evolution of the network among the several effects defined and provided in the package RSiena, through the command “effectsDocumentation”. We chose the ones best suited to our studio and network characteristics.

  10. The PRIN calls have changed since 2005 and after this date has not been possible to participate to the PRIN for two consecutive years.

References

  • Albert, R., & Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 47.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, B., & Khanna, T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, K. A. (2011). The formation of collaboration networks among individuals with heterogeneous skills. Working Papers. IDEAS: https://ideas.repec.org/p/cmu/gsiawp/938084531.html#biblio.

  • Andersson, A., & Persson, O. (1993). Networking scientists. The Annals of Regional Science, 27(1), 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arenas, A., Danon, L., Díaz-Guilera, A., Gleiser, P., & Guimerá, R. (2004). Community analysis in social networks. European Physical Journal B, 38(2), 373.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Barabàsi, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52, 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellotti, E. (2012). Getting funded. Multi-level network of physicists in Italy. Social Networks, 34, 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, J., Rodriguez, M. A., & de Sompel, H. V. (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69(3), 669–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2011). The h index as a research performance indicator. European Science Editing, 37(3), 77–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A., & Frenken, K. (2009). The spatial evolution of innovation networks. A proximity perspective. In R. A. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary economic geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, A., Yarlagadda, S., & Chakrabarti, B. (2005). Econophysics of wealth distributions. Milan: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51, 661–703.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. M. (2008). Eigenfactor: Does the principle of repeated improvement result in better estimates than raw citation counts? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2186–2188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Stefano, D., Fuccella, V., Prosperina, V. M., & Zaccarin, S. (2013). The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance. Social Networks, 35(3), 370–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durfee, E. H., Lesser, V. R., & Corkill, D. D. (1989). Cooperative distributed problem solving. In A. Barr, P. R. Cohen, & E. A. Feigenbaum (Eds.), The handbook of artificial intelligence IV (pp. 83–127). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, D. A., & López, J. M. V. (2015). Towards a European supranational policy of education based on the European dimension on education. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 67(1), 101–116. doi:10.13042/Bordon.2015.67107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, C. S. (2015). Fitting heavy tailed distributions: The poweRlaw package. Journal of Statistical Software, 64(2), 1–16. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v64/i02/.

  • Giot, L., et al. (2003). A protein interaction map of Drosophila melanogaster. Science, 302, 1727–1736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gmür, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. M., & Katz, J. S. (1996). Where is science going? Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 379–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, M., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2003). Statistical analysis of longitudinal network data with changing composition. Sociological Methods & Research, 32(2), 253–287.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, M., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2008). Treatment of non-response in longitudinal network studies. Social Networks, 30, 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummon, N. P., & Carley, K. (1993). Social networks as normal science. Social Networks, 15, 71–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummon, N. P., & Doreian, P. (1989). Connectivity in a citation network: The development of DNA theory. Social Networks, 11, 39–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2012). Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics, 90(2), 631–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2006). The ‘quality myth’: Promoting and hindering conditions for acquiring research funds. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersaeter S., et al. (2007). Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of changes? Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 372–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001a). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64, 025102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 404.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific co-authorship networks. In E. Ben-Naim, H. Frauenfelder, & Z. Toroczkai (Eds.), Complex networks (pp. 337–370). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2005). Power laws. Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics, 46, 323–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & Van Den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, J. (1997). Markov chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reale, E, & Zinilli, A. (2014). Evaluation processes in research grant allocation: What is the relevance of scientific quality? In Paper presented at the 27th CHER conference. Rome. 8–10 September.

  • Robbins, H., & Monro, S. (1951). A stochastic approximation method. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22, 400–407.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Scherngell, T., & Lata, R. (2011). Towards an integrated European research area? Findings from Eigenvector spatially filtered spatial interaction models using European Framework Programme data. Papers in Regional Science, 92, 555–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, S. (2006). Evidence for power-law tail of the wealth distribution in India. Physica A, 359, 555–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith. D. & J. S. Katz (2000). Collaborative approaches to research. A report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Centre for Policy Studies in Education, University of Leeds.

  • Snijders, T. A. B. (1996). Stochastic actor-oriented models for network change. The Journal of mathematical Sociology, 21(1–2), 149–172.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. In M. Sobel & M. Becker (Eds.), Sociological methodology (pp. 361–395). Boston, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Models for longitudinal network data. In P. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 215–247). New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C., Schweinberger, M., & Huisman, M. (2010). Manual for SIENA version 3.2. Provisional version. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuong, Q. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57, 307–333.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., Dodds, P. S., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Identity and search in social networks. Science, 296, 1302–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of’small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinilli, A., & Cerulli, G. (2015). DATANET: A stata procedure to facilitate dataset organization for network analysis, Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics. http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:boc:bocode:s458033. Published: 06-25-2015.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has benefitted from helpful comments and suggestions by Emanuela Reale. I would also like to thank Thomas Scherngell and Michael Barber for their advice during my visiting in Vienna granted by the Eu-SPRI PhD Circulation Award.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Antonio Zinilli

  2. IRCRES CNR, Rome, Italy

    Antonio Zinilli

Authors
  1. Antonio Zinilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Zinilli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zinilli, A. Competitive project funding and dynamic complex networks: evidence from Projects of National Interest (PRIN). Scientometrics 108, 633–652 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1976-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1976-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation