-
Do interests affect grant application success? The role of organizational proximity
Authors:
Charlie Mom,
Peter van den Besselaar
Abstract:
Bias in grant allocation is a critical issue, as the expectation is that grants are given to the best researchers, and not to applicants that are socially, organizationally, or topic-wise near-by the decision-makers. In this paper, we investigate the effect of organizational proximity, defined as an applicant with the same affiliation as one of the panel members (a near-by panelist), on the probab…
▽ More
Bias in grant allocation is a critical issue, as the expectation is that grants are given to the best researchers, and not to applicants that are socially, organizationally, or topic-wise near-by the decision-makers. In this paper, we investigate the effect of organizational proximity, defined as an applicant with the same affiliation as one of the panel members (a near-by panelist), on the probability of getting a grant. This study is based on one of the most prominent grant schemes in Europe, with overall excellent scientists as panel members. Various aspects of this organizational proximity are analyzed: Who gains from it? Does it have a gender dimension? Is it bias, or can it be explained by performance differences? We do find that the probability to get funded increases significantly for those that apply in a panel where there is a panelist from the institution where the applicant has agreed to use the grant. At the same time, the effect differs between disciplines and countries, and men profit more of it than women do. Finally, depending on how one defines what counts as the best researchers, the near-by panelist effect can be interpreted as preferential attachment (quality links to quality) or as bias and particularism.
△ Less
Submitted 26 May, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Gender differences in research grant allocation -- a mixed picture
Authors:
Peter van den Besselaar,
Charlie Mom
Abstract:
Gender bias in grant allocation is a deviation from the principle that scientific merit should guide grant decisions. However, most studies on gender bias in grant allocation focus on gender differences in success rates, without including variables that measure merit. This study has two main contributions. Firstly, it includes several merit variables in the analysis. Secondly, it includes an analy…
▽ More
Gender bias in grant allocation is a deviation from the principle that scientific merit should guide grant decisions. However, most studies on gender bias in grant allocation focus on gender differences in success rates, without including variables that measure merit. This study has two main contributions. Firstly, it includes several merit variables in the analysis. Secondly, it includes an analysis at the panel level where the selection process takes place, and this enables to study bias more in-depth at the process level. The findings are: (i) After controlling for merit, a consistent pattern of gender bias was found in the scores: women receive significant lower grades than men do. (ii) The scores are an input into the two-step decision-making process, and this study shows bias against women in the first selection decision where 75% of the applications are rejected, and bias in favor of women in the second (final) selection decision. (iii) At the level of individual panels, the analysis shows a mixed pattern of bias: in some panels the odds for women to receive a grant are lower than for men, whereas in other panels we find the opposite, next to panels with gender-neutral decision making. (iv) In the case under study, at an aggregated level the allocation of grants seems balanced. (v) The mixed pattern at panel level seems to relate characteristics such as the panel composition, and the level of gender stereotyping.
△ Less
Submitted 26 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Does Quantity Make a Difference? The importance of publishing many papers
Authors:
Peter van den Besselaar,
Ulf Sandstrom
Abstract:
Do highly productive researchers have significantly higher probability to produce top cited papers? Or does the increased productivity in science only result in a sea of irrelevant papers as a perverse effect of competition and the increased use of indicators for research evaluation and accountability focus? We use a Swedish author disambiguated data set consisting of 48,000 researchers and their…
▽ More
Do highly productive researchers have significantly higher probability to produce top cited papers? Or does the increased productivity in science only result in a sea of irrelevant papers as a perverse effect of competition and the increased use of indicators for research evaluation and accountability focus? We use a Swedish author disambiguated data set consisting of 48,000 researchers and their WoS-publications during the period of 2008 2011 with citations until 2014 to investigate the relation between productivity and production of highly cited papers. As the analysis shows, quantity does make a difference.
△ Less
Submitted 7 October, 2015;
originally announced October 2015.
-
Theoretical And Technological Building Blocks For An Innovation Accelerator
Authors:
Frank van Harmelen,
George Kampis,
Katy Borner,
Peter van den Besselaar,
Erik Schultes,
Carole Goble,
Paul Groth,
Barend Mons,
Stuart Anderson,
Stefan Decker,
Conor Hayes,
Thierry Buecheler,
Dirk Helbing
Abstract:
The scientific system that we use today was devised centuries ago and is inadequate for our current ICT-based society: the peer review system encourages conservatism, journal publications are monolithic and slow, data is often not available to other scientists, and the independent validation of results is limited. Building on the Innovation Accelerator paper by Helbing and Balietti (2011) this pap…
▽ More
The scientific system that we use today was devised centuries ago and is inadequate for our current ICT-based society: the peer review system encourages conservatism, journal publications are monolithic and slow, data is often not available to other scientists, and the independent validation of results is limited. Building on the Innovation Accelerator paper by Helbing and Balietti (2011) this paper takes the initial global vision and reviews the theoretical and technological building blocks that can be used for implementing an innovation (in first place: science) accelerator platform driven by re-imagining the science system. The envisioned platform would rest on four pillars: (i) Redesign the incentive scheme to reduce behavior such as conservatism, herding and hyping; (ii) Advance scientific publications by breaking up the monolithic paper unit and introducing other building blocks such as data, tools, experiment workflows, resources; (iii) Use machine readable semantics for publications, debate structures, provenance etc. in order to include the computer as a partner in the scientific process, and (iv) Build an online platform for collaboration, including a network of trust and reputation among the different types of stakeholders in the scientific system: scientists, educators, funding agencies, policy makers, students and industrial innovators among others. Any such improvements to the scientific system must support the entire scientific process (unlike current tools that chop up the scientific process into disconnected pieces), must facilitate and encourage collaboration and interdisciplinarity (again unlike current tools), must facilitate the inclusion of intelligent computing in the scientific process, must facilitate not only the core scientific process, but also accommodate other stakeholders such science policy makers, industrial innovators, and the general public.
△ Less
Submitted 4 October, 2012;
originally announced October 2012.
-
Scientometrics and Communication Theory: Towards Theoretically Informed Indicators
Authors:
Loet Leydesdorff,
Peter Van den Besselaar
Abstract:
A theory of citations should not consider cited and/or citing agents as its sole subject of study. One is able to study also the dynamics in the networks of communications. While communicating agents (e.g., authors, laboratories, journals) can be made comparable in terms of their publication and citation counts, one would expect the communication networks not to be homogeneous. The latent struct…
▽ More
A theory of citations should not consider cited and/or citing agents as its sole subject of study. One is able to study also the dynamics in the networks of communications. While communicating agents (e.g., authors, laboratories, journals) can be made comparable in terms of their publication and citation counts, one would expect the communication networks not to be homogeneous. The latent structures of the network indicate different codifications that span a space of possible 'translations'. The various subdynamics can be hypothesized from an evolutionary perspective. Using the network of aggregated journal-journal citations in Science & Technology Studies as an empirical case, the operation of such subdynamics can be demonstrated. Policy implications and the consequences for a theory-driven type of scientometrics will be elaborated.
△ Less
Submitted 25 January, 2010;
originally announced January 2010.
-
Distributed scientific communication in the European information society: Some cases of "Mode 2" fields of research
Authors:
Gaston Heimeriks,
Loet Leydesdorff,
Peter Van den Besselaar
Abstract:
Can self-organization of scientific communication be specified by using literature-based indicators? In this study, we explore this question by applying entropy measures to typical "Mode-2" fields of knowledge production. We hypothesized these scientific systems to be developing from a self-organization of the interaction between cognitive and institutional levels: European subsidized research p…
▽ More
Can self-organization of scientific communication be specified by using literature-based indicators? In this study, we explore this question by applying entropy measures to typical "Mode-2" fields of knowledge production. We hypothesized these scientific systems to be developing from a self-organization of the interaction between cognitive and institutional levels: European subsidized research programs aim at creating an institutional network, while a cognitive reorganization is continuously ongoing at the scientific field level. The results indicate that the European system develops towards a stable level of distribution of cited references and title-words among the European member states. We suggested that this distribution could be a property of the emerging European system. In order to measure to degree of specialization with respect to the respective distributions of countries, cited references and title words, the mutual information among the three frequency distributions was calculated. The so-called transmission values informed us that the European system shows increasing levels of differentiation.
△ Less
Submitted 8 January, 2010;
originally announced January 2010.
-
A Meta-evaluation of Scientific Research Proposals: Different Ways of Comparing Rejected to Awarded Applications
Authors:
Lutz Bornmann,
Loet Leydesdorff,
Peter van den Besselaar
Abstract:
Combining different data sets with information on grant and fellowship applications submitted to two renowned funding agencies, we are able to compare their funding decisions (award and rejection) with scientometric performance indicators across two fields of science (life sciences and social sciences). The data sets involve 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life scienc…
▽ More
Combining different data sets with information on grant and fellowship applications submitted to two renowned funding agencies, we are able to compare their funding decisions (award and rejection) with scientometric performance indicators across two fields of science (life sciences and social sciences). The data sets involve 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life sciences. In both fields, awarded applicants perform on average better than all rejected applicants. If only the most preeminent rejected applicants are considered in both fields, they score better than the awardees on citation impact. With regard to productivity we find differences between the fields: While the awardees in life sciences outperform on average the most preeminent rejected applicants, the situation is reversed in social sciences.
△ Less
Submitted 18 November, 2009;
originally announced November 2009.
