The Impact of NSF Support for Basic Research In Economics

Arora,; Gambardella, Antonio

doi:10.2307/20777571

Cited by 84 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies that examine the funding-output link at the level of the individual researcher tend to find small positive effects (Arora and Gambardella, 2005;Averch, 1987Averch, , 1989. However, these studies recognize the potential for selection bias, which would lead them to overstate the true impact of grant receipt.…”

Section: Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these studies recognize the potential for selection bias, which would lead them to overstate the true impact of grant receipt. For example, Arora and Gambardella (2005) find that past productivity and other observable researcher characteristics such as institution quality are correlated with NSF award selection even after controlling for reviewer score, suggesting that their estimates may be biased upward. 2 A few earlier studies have examined the effect of research funding provided by NIH in particular.…”

Section: Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact of Research Grant Funding on Scientific Productivity

Jacob

Lefgren

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we estimate the impact of receiving an NIH grant on subsequent publications and citations. Our sample consists of all applications (unsuccessful as well as successful) to the NIH from 1980 to 2000 for standard research grants (R01s). Both OLS and IV estimates show that receipt of an NIH research grant (worth roughly $1.7 million) leads to only one additional publication over the next five years, which corresponds to a 7 percent increase. The limited impact of NIH grants is consistent with a model in which the market for research funding is competitive, so that the loss of an NIH grant simply causes researchers to shift to another source of funding.

show abstract

Section: Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Research Grant Funding on Scientific Productivity

Jacob

Lefgren

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An examination of the literature reveals that the factors influencing faculties' research productivity have been studied for decades. There are a number of factors such as scholarship (Arora and Gambardella, 1996), age and life cycle (Levin and Stephan, 2011), research activity performance of department (Smeby and Try, 2005), scientific collaboration (Lee and Bozeman, 2005), quality of training or individual abilities and skills (Wichian et al, 2009), and faculty motivation and incentives (Monroe and Kumar, 2011b). These factors are generally of two types: individual variables and environmental variables.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication productivity of academics in Jigjiga University, Ethiopia

Feyera¹,

Atelaw²,

Hassen³

et al. 2017

Educ. Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This descriptive cross-sectional survey examined faculty publication productivity at Jigjiga University, Ethiopia. It, specifically, aimed at exploring the factors and barriers that may influence publication productivity among academic staffs while also comparing variations across academic disciplines. The survey employed self-administered questionnaire distributed to 120 faculties randomly selected from nine academic disciplines during February to April 2016. This observation indicated that only 38.3% of the academic faculty members have published a research work since joining Jigjiga University. Publication of journal articles was the predominant type of publication outlet (58.7%) followed by conference proceedings (13%). The analysis result indicated that there was statistically significant (p<0.05) variation in publication productivity in relation to years in academic profession, highest degree earned and academic rank of the respondents. Similarly, faculty members who had track records on research grant winning, theses supervision as well as attending academic conferences and research related trainings were more likely to publish (p<0.05) as against those who did not have such experiences. However, there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in publication productivity in relation to sex, age, teaching load and involvement in administrative activities. In addition, significant variation (p<0.05) existed on publication productivity across academic disciplines. Faculties in the natural and life science fields generally appeared to publish more than those in the social sciences. Respondents cited several factors that can be implicated in the low prevalence of publication productivity at Jigjiga University. The most cited barriers in order of higher frequency include lack of recognition such as promotion, absence of institutional research journal, poor access to information sources such as internet connectivity, insufficient research facilities, lack of financial incentives, lack of institutional/department support on publication, high publication charges inquired by journals, and poor research and publication atmosphere which were agreed upon by about 75% of the respondents. Most of these obstacles were organizational in nature, and thus focus to improve research productivity should consider tackling these factors at institutional level. Therefore, results of this survey imply that understanding these inhibitory factors and designing appropriate intervention strategy may help Jigjiga University towards improving the research and publication productivity of its academic faculty members.

show abstract

“…There is, however, ample empirical evidence suggesting that STI policy should be concerned with the provision of adequate funding of public science. Research grants are found to increase individual productivity (Stephan, 1996;Lee and Bozeman, 2005) although this relationship is moderated by the scientist's career stage (Arora and Gambardella, 2006) and the size of the grant (Godin, 2003). Moreover, most research grants are intended to stimulate collaborative behaviour among scientists (Defazio et al, 2009).…”

Section: Policy Context and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Excellence and Extramural Research Grants: Beggars Can't Be Choosers?

Grimpe

2010

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp10031.pdf Non-technical summaryIn the 1980s, the European Union (EU) started to develop its own technology policy independent from the member states. Since then the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP) has become the major funding scheme in this policy field. With a budget of around 17 billion Euros, the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) provided funding for R&D projects in the years 2002 to 2006. Several attempts have been made recently to assess the impact of FP6 projects. A key interest of these reviews has been to analyse the structure of participation, i.e. who chose to participate and what these participants did achieve. One result is that FP6 projects involved the contribution of excellent scientists, measured in terms of publications and received citations. Another result is that participation seems to be widely regarded as a "quality seal" for the researchers involved. This paper focuses on public science and the role that FP6 played for financing research in relation to other grant sources available to the scientists. In fact, university scientists may typically consider four types of extramural funding schemes. Besides the FP, national governments, foundations, and -not least -industry grants can be significant sources. Although all funding bodies typically apply competitive, meritbased selection procedures, there may be different priorities and success criteria to award a grant. Hence, scientists can be assumed to select the funding source for which they expect the highest "return". More specifically, this paper investigates whether FP6 actually succeeded in attracting the scientific "A Team" given the variety of funding opportunities available to public science, and whether an FP6 participation complements or substitutes other types of grants. Based on a random sample of German scientists at universities and public research institutes, the paper links the scientist's excellence and productivity in terms of publication and patenting activities to the choice of a particular grant.The results indicate that highly credentialed scientists in fact prefer government, foundation and industry grants over FP6. Moreover, FP6 participation seems to substitute for other types of grants. These findings suggest that the FP is in fact the funding instrument for the scientific "B Team" which is in stark contrast to prior reviews of the FP. There seem...

show abstract

The Impact of NSF Support for Basic Research In Economics

Cited by 84 publications

References 0 publications

The Impact of Research Grant Funding on Scientific Productivity

The Impact of Research Grant Funding on Scientific Productivity

Publication productivity of academics in Jigjiga University, Ethiopia

Scientific Excellence and Extramural Research Grants: Beggars Can't Be Choosers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About