The effect of competitive public funding on scientific output: A comparison between China and the EU

Abstract

Public funding is believed to play an important role in the development of science and technology. However, whether public funding and, in particular, competitive funding from public agencies actually helps to increase scientific output (i.e. publications) remains a matter of debate. By analysing a dataset of co-publications between China and the EU and a dataset of joint project collaborations in European Framework Programs for Research and Innovation [FP7 and Horizon 2020 (H2020)], we investigate whether different public funding agencies’ competitive assets have different impact on the volume of publication output. Our results support the hypotheses that competitively funded research output varies by funding sources, so that a high level of funding does not necessarily lead to high scientific output. Our results show that FP7/H2020 funded projects do not have a positive contribution to the output of joint publications between China and the EU. Interestingly, cooperation in the form of jointly writing proposals to these EU programmes, especially when they are not granted by the European Commission, can contribute significantly to joint scientific publications in a later stage. This applies in particular to cases where funding from China is involved. Our findings highlight the key role that funding agencies play in influencing research behaviour. Our results indicate that Chinese funding triggers a high number of publications, whereas research funded by the EU does so to a much lower extent, arguably due to the EU’s strong focus on social impact and its funding schemes as tools to promote European integration.

How does academia respond to the burden of infectious and parasitic disease?

“…The extent to which researchers have responded to the health needs caused by infectious diseases reveals the connections between the "supply side " of science and knowledge and "demand side" in health fields (11). Academic research is a complex, collaborative, and goal-oriented activity (12), driven by diverse individual and social factors (13). At the individual end of the spectrum, we have, for example, the curiosity of the researcher (14).…”

A survey of experts on personalized medicine landscape in European Union and China

“…Although China was considered as the second largest spender on R&D globally as of 2020 [ 12 ], lack of funding was indicated as the main obstacle for targeted research [ 13 ]. A recent study by Wang et al [ 14 ] reported that the Chinese government funding is mainly associated with enhancement of measurable and recognizable scientific output, whereas EU is more likely to fund projects with social impact, that might not directly be transferable to scientific output [ 15 ]. The experts considered that partnerships between funding organizations, government, pharmaceutical industry and academic institutions have the potential to facilitate funding programs or activities.…”

Spatial-Temporal Pattern of Agricultural Total Factor Productivity Change (Tfpch) in China and Its Implications for Agricultural Sustainable Development

“…On the other hand, China can introduce and transform a number of foreign advanced agricultural production methods and production technologies, so as to promote the improvement of agricultural Tfpch [34]. The increasing investment in scientific research, especially in agriculture scientific research, also plays an important role in the improvement of agricultural total factor productivity [35]. In terms of the decomposition indexes of agricultural Tfpch, this study finds a trend of enhanced technical change and weakened technical efficiency change, which is worthy of attention.…”