The consequences of competition: simulating the effects of research grant allocation strategies


Researchers have to operate in an increasingly competitive environment in which funding is becoming a scarce resource. Funding agencies are unable to experiment with their allocation policies since even small changes can have dramatic effects on academia. We present a Proposal-Evaluation-Grant System (PEGS) which allows us to simulate different research funding allocation policies. We implemented four Resource Allocation Strategies (RAS) entitled Communism, Lottery, Realistic, and Ideal. The results show that there is a strong effect of the RAS on the careers of the researchers. In addition the PEGS investigated the influence of the paper writing skill and the grant review errors.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Afonso, A. (2013). How academia resembles a drug gang.

  2. Barnes, L. L. B., Agago, M. O., & Coombs, W. T. (1998). Effects of job-related stress on faculty intention to leave academia. Research in Higher Education, 39(4), 457–469.

  3. Barnett, A., Herbert, D., & Graves, N. (2013). The end of written grant applications: let's use a formula.

  4. Bartneck, C. (2010). The all-in publication policy. In: Fourth international conference on digital society (ICDS 2010), (pp. 37–40). IEEE, St. Maarten doi:10.1109/ICDS.2010.14.

  5. Bazeley, P. (2003). Defining "early career" in research. Higher Education, 45(3), 257–279.

  6. Canterbury University - Human Resource Department. (2013). Staff report, human resources department of canterbury university. New Zealand.

  7. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production?: Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.03.004.

  8. Curtis, J. W., & Thornton, S. (2013). Here's the news: The annual report on the economic status of the profession 2012–13. Academe, 99(2), 4–17.  

  9. Day, N. E. (2011). The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 704–718. doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0027.

  10. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101.

  11. Economic, Council SR. (2010). Success rates.

  12. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. (2013). Success rates. Technical Representative.

  13. Franceschet, M. (2009). A cluster analysis of scholar and journal bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 1950–1964.

  14. Friesenhahn, I., & Beaudry, C. (2014). The global state of young scientists. Technical Representative.

  15. Funken, C., Hörlin, S., & Rogge, J. C. (2014). Generation 35 plus—Aufstieg oder ausstieg?. Technical Representative, Technische Universität Berlin.

  16. Geard, N., & Noble, J. (2010). Modelling academic research funding as a resource allocation problem: Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation, University of Kassel, Germany (pp. SES-09_I).

  17. GEW, German Education Union. (2014). The templin manifesto.

  18. Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Education & Educational Research, 66, 507–542.

  19. Herbert, D. L., Barnett, A. G., Clarke, P., & Graves, N. (2013). On the time spent preparing grant proposals: An observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open, 3(5). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800.

  20. Herbert, D. L., Coveney, J., Clarke, P., Graves, N., & Barnett, A. G. (2014). The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open, 4(3). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004462

  21. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Estimates of the continuously publishing core in the scientific workforce. PloS One, 9(7), e101698. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101698.

  22. Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2002). Faculty members’ morale and their intention to leave: A multilevel explanation. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 518–542.

  23. Jones, A. (2013). The explosive growth of postdocs in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 56, 37–39. doi:10.1145/2408776.2408801.

  24. Kelchtermans, S., & Veugelers, R. (2005). Top research productivity and its persistence. a survival time analysis for a panel of belgian scientists. DTEW Research Report, 0576, 1–31. doi:10.1089/dst.2013.0013.

  25. Knapp, L. G., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Ginder, S. A. (2011). Employees in postsecondary institutions, fall 2010, and salaries of full-time instructional staff, 2010–11. Technical Representative, U.S. Department of Education.

  26. Koelman, J., & Venniker, R. (2001). Public funding of academic research: The research assessment exercise of the UK. In Higher education reform: Getting the incentives right (pp. 101–117). Den Haag: SDU.

  27. Link, A. N., Swann, C. A., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 363–374. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.04.002.

  28. Moses, I. (1986). Promotion of academic staff: Reward and incentive. Higher Education, 15(1/2), 135–149.

  29. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. (2013). Annual report, (pp. 2012–2013).

  30. National Institute of Healt. (2013). Success rates.

  31. Peyton, S. J., & Bundy, A. (2006). Writing a good grant proposal.

  32. Rice, C. (2014). Why women leave academia and why universities should be worried.

  33. Roey, S., & Rak, R. (1998). (1995). Fall staff in postsecondary institutions, 1995. Technical Representative. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement

  34. The Tertiary Education Comission. (2012). Performance-based research fund evaluating research excellence—the 2012 Assessment (Interim Report).

  35. van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I., & van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93(3), 857–868. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0712-y.

  36. van der Lee, R., & Ellemers, N. (2015). Gender contributes to personal research funding success in the netherlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(40), 12349–12353. doi:10.1073/pnas.1510159112.

  37. Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342(6154), 127–132. doi:10.1126/science.1237825.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Christoph Bartneck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Höylä, T., Bartneck, C. & Tiihonen, T. The consequences of competition: simulating the effects of research grant allocation strategies. Scientometrics 108, 263–288 (2016) doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1940-3

Download citation


  • Funding
  • Allocation
  • Competition
  • Simulation