Scientometrics

, Volume 108, Issue 1, pp 263–288 | Cite as

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

  • Tuomas Höylä
  • Christoph Bartneck
  • Timo Tiihonen
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Funding Allocation Competition Simulation 

References

  1. Afonso, A. (2013). How academia resembles a drug gang. http://alexandreafonso.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, A., Herbert, D., & Graves, N. (2013). The end of written grant applications: let's use a formula. http://theconversation.com/the-end-of-written-grant-applications-lets-use-a-formula-19747.
  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.Google Scholar
  6. Canterbury University - Human Resource Department. (2013). Staff report, human resources department of canterbury university. New Zealand.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.  Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. (2013). Success rates. Technical Representative. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/fundingdecisions/successrates/201213/.
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friesenhahn, I., & Beaudry, C. (2014). The global state of young scientists. Technical Representative. http://www.globalyoungacademy.net/projects/glosys-1/gya-glosys-report-webversion.
  14. Funken, C., Hörlin, S., & Rogge, J. C. (2014). Generation 35 plus—Aufstieg oder ausstieg?. Technical Representative, Technische Universität Berlin. https://www.mgs.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/i62/mgs/Generation35plus_ebook.pdf.
  15. 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).Google Scholar
  16. GEW, German Education Union. (2014). The templin manifesto. http://www.gew.de/Binaries/Binary90289/Templin_Manifesto.pdf.
  17. Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Education & Educational Research, 66, 507–542.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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-2013-004462Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, A. (2013). The explosive growth of postdocs in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 56, 37–39. doi: 10.1145/2408776.2408801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moses, I. (1986). Promotion of academic staff: Reward and incentive. Higher Education, 15(1/2), 135–149.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. (2013). Annual report, (pp. 2012–2013).Google Scholar
  29. National Institute of Healt. (2013). Success rates. http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/.
  30. Peyton, S. J., & Bundy, A. (2006). Writing a good grant proposal. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/proposal.html.
  31. Rice, C. (2014). Why women leave academia and why universities should be worried. http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2012/may/24/why-women-leave-academia.
  32. Roey, S., & Rak, R. (1998). (1995). Fall staff in postsecondary institutions, 1995. Technical Representative. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and ImprovementGoogle Scholar
  33. The Tertiary Education Comission. (2012). Performance-based research fund evaluating research excellence—the 2012 Assessment (Interim Report). http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Reports%20and%20other%20documents/PBRF-Assessment-Interim-Report-2012.pdf.
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342(6154), 127–132. doi: 10.1126/science.1237825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tuomas Höylä
    • 1
  • Christoph Bartneck
    • 1
  • Timo Tiihonen
    • 2
  1. 1.HIT Lab NZUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical Information TechnologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations