Competition for funding as an indicator of research competitiveness

Abstract

Research quality is the cornerstone of modern science, it is used in the understanding of reputational differences among scientific and academic institutions. Traditionally, scientific activity is measured by a set of indicators and well-established bibliometric techniques based on the number of academic papers published in top-ranked journals or on the number of citations of these papers. These indicators are usually critical in measuring differences in research performance, both at individual and at scientific institutional levels. In this paper, we introduce an alternative and complementary set of indicators based on the results of competition for research funding, that aims to enlarge the framework in which research performance has traditionally been measured. Theoretical support for this paper is found in the role that the search for funding plays in the researchers' credibility cycle as well as in peer review, the basic instrument for the allocation of public R&D funds. Our method analyses the outcomes of the researchers' struggle for funding, using data from research proposal applications and awards, as the unit of observation, and aggregating them by research institutions to rank them in relative scales of research competitiveness.

Strategies in the production and dissemination of knowledge

“…This recognition increases the researcher's power in competing for heterogeneously distributed resources (Garcia & Sanz-Menendez, 2005) and thus in the researcher's positioning. This is because society is more likely to share resources with recognised researchers, as they seem to be more credible and productive.…”

Research Proposal: Barriers to new user and new domain adoption of the XSEDE Cyberinfrastructure

“…The standard operating procedure for evaluating both inputs (proposals) and outputs (scientific work) of grantfunded projects remains the peer review process. Garcia and Sanz-Menendez [6] discuss the context of peer review as metric of scientific research quite fully in their evaluation of competition in research initiatives. The authors begin tracing the path of peer review with the assertion that individual reputation and credit are central to the creation of the social structure of science, and that recognition by ones' peers is the foundation of legitimacy and leadership in a given field.…”

“…Peer review, despite some of its flaws outlined below, is not only the basic mechanism for ensuring quality of research, but also a critical factor in monitoring the efficiency of government investment in science. Peer review provides legitimacy to governmental bodies, and scientific work which has passed peer review has greater esteem in its scientific surroundings [6]. However, with the advent of new initiatives in government for assessing and monitoring of performance, peer review has had mixed fortunes as an evaluative tool for officials in charge of awarding research grants.…”

“…Latour and Woolgar [15] established research funding as a vital part of researchers' credibility and reputation with other scientists. Garcia and Sanz-Menendez [6] sum the idea of competition up well: "Thus, competition for funds is an essential mechanism in the cognitive functioning of research, articulated in the credibility cycle, and a vehicle for relationships between science and government". Competition between researchers has a number of valuable features that aid scientific development.…”

Producción ISI y tramos de investigación: cómo combinarlos en un nuevo indicador

“…El próximo paso consistirá en estudiarlo para diferentes áreas de conocimiento (ciencias básicas y experimentales vs. ciencias sociales y humanidades), e incluso para las diferentes comisiones Cneai (11 en total). Otra variable con la que se puede cruzar es el de la tasa de éxito en la concesión de proyecto de investigación 6 . Una tasa de éxito alta combinada con un indicador P/T bajo, podría hacer a una universidad sospechosa de ser favorecida por el sistema, y viceversa.…”