RESEARCH ARTICLE

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

Kaare Aagaard , Alexander Kladakis

, and Mathias W. Nielsen

Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University,
Bartholins Allé 7, DK-8000 Aarhus C, 丹麦

开放访问

杂志

关键词: research funding, funding concentration, diversity, research performance, 研究
政策

引文: Aagaard, K., Kladakis, A。, &
Nielsen, 中号. 瓦. (2020). Concentration or
dispersal of research funding?
Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1),
117–149. https://doi.org/10.1162/
qss_a_00002

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00002

已收到: 11 行进 2019
公认: 24 六月 2019

通讯作者:
Kaare Aagaard
ka@ps.au.dk

处理编辑器:
Vincent Larivière

版权: © 2019 Kaare Aagaard,
Alexander Kladakis, and Mathias W.
Nielsen. Published under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 国际的
(抄送 4.0) 执照.

麻省理工学院出版社

抽象的

The relationship between the distribution of research funding and scientific performance is a
major discussion point in many science policy contexts. Do high shares of funding handed
out to a limited number of elite scientists yield the most value for money, or is scientific
progress better supported by allocating resources in smaller portions to more teams and
个人? In this review article, we seek to qualify discussions on the benefits and
drawbacks of concentrating research funds on fewer individuals and groups. Based on an
initial screening of 3,567 articles and a thorough examination of 92 文件, we present a
condensation of central arguments. 更远, we juxtapose key findings from 20 years of
empirical research on the relation between the size of research grants and scientific
表现. 全面的, the review demonstrates a strong inclination toward arguments in favor
of increased dispersal. A substantial body of empirical research also exhibits stagnant or
diminishing returns to scale for the relationship between grant size and research performance.
The findings question the rationale behind current funding trends and point toward more
efficient ways to allocate resources. 此外, they highlight the need for more research on
the interplay between science-internal mechanisms and policy priorities in accelerating
concentration of funding.

1.

介绍

Maximizing the returns of research funding investments is a major concern among science
policy-makers and stakeholders. A key issue in current debates concerns the relationship be-
tween the size and concentration of research grants and scientific performance. Are scientific
discovery and productivity best supported by concentrating funding in the hands of a limited
number of PIs or by spreading out funding on many small and medium-sized teams?
Discussions on this question have recently been bolstered by research reporting accelerating
trends toward funding concentration at different levels in the science system, notably at the
individual and group level. 例如, Bloch and Sorensen (2015) report a generic trend
toward funding concentration at the individual and group level across a broad range of coun-
尝试, whereas Katz and Matter (2017) find that funding inequalities in the US National Institutes
of Health have increased considerably between 1985 和 2015, with a small segment of inves-
tigators and institutes accumulating an increasing proportion of funds. Two Canadian studies
(Larivière et al., 2010; Mongeon et al., 2016) also report a tendency toward resource concen-
tration on fewer individuals and groups across a broad range of fields, whereas Ma et al. (2015)
show similar patterns for the engineering and physical sciences in the UK. 然而, the evi-
dence is still scattered and trends toward concentration are likely to play out differently across
国家, 机构, fields and specialties.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

在本文中, we seek to qualify current policy discussions on the benefits and drawbacks of
the shift toward an increase in grant size and/or an intensification in the accumulation of grants
at the individual and group level. We do this by carrying out the first systematic review of a
steadily growing literature on the effects of funding concentration.

By limiting our focus to the individual and group levels, we leave out a substantial literature
on funding concentration at the national, 区域性的, institutional, 纪律处分, faculty and de-
partment level. Although this literature is key to understanding broader patterns of concentra-
tion and social stratification in the contemporary science system, our main objective with this
review is to examine the possible consequences of concentrating research funding at the
micro-level. In the remainder of the paper, we use “funding concentration” to refer to the trend
toward allocating larger shares of funding to fewer individuals and groups, and “funding dis-
persal” as a reference to the distribution of smaller shares to more individuals and groups.

Our paper makes several important contributions. To our knowledge, this is the first system-
atic review of the literature concerned with the benefits and drawbacks of concentrating re-
search funding at the individual and group level. We examine developments in the literature
on funding concentration from the 1980s and demonstrate a rapid increase in both opinion-
based and empirical studies on the topic, especially over the past 10 年. We map geo-
graphical and disciplinary variations in the scholarly attention to issues of concentration
and dispersal, and show a clear North American bias and an overrepresentation of studies
focusing on the biomedical sciences. We further present a condensation of main arguments
for and against concentration or dispersal of research funding, and find that the vast majority
of the literature leans toward arguments in favor of dispersal. 最后, we summarize extant
empirical research on the relation between funding size and research performance, and find
little compelling evidence that bigger is necessarily better. Most empirical studies demonstrate
stagnant or diminishing returns to investment for grant sizes above a certain threshold,
although this threshold appears to vary depending on field- and country-specific characteris-
抽动症. 最后, we assess the reviewed literature as a whole and identify limitations, gaps and
promising avenues for further investigation.

The policy implications of these findings are important because they question the rationale
behind current funding trends and may point toward more efficient ways to allocate resources.
然而, to remedy some of the shortcomings in the funding system it is necessary to under-
stand the interplay between science-internal mechanisms and the policy factors which may
drive trends toward increased concentration. These issues are discussed at the end of the
纸.

The paper proceeds as follows: 第一的, we detail the search strategy and selection criteria
used to survey the literature. 第二, we present a descriptive analysis of the selected corpus
of eligible articles. 第三, we outline the main arguments in favor of concentration and dis-
persal. 第四, we examine empirical research on the relation between funding size and re-
search performance. 最后, we discuss the main findings, draw conclusions, highlight caveats
of the literature, and propose directions for further enquiry.

2. 材料和方法

The literature on concentration and dispersal of research funding is still in its infancy and
hence characterized by wide variations in terminology. These characteristics do not only re-
duce the value and usefulness of the available evidence, they also challenge systematic,
semiautomated searches in the large bibliographic databases at the outset of a review process.
所以, we initiated the literature search by collecting 11 papers that we, based on our

Quantitative Science Studies

118

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

knowledge of the field, considered to be core publications on the topic. From this outset a
problem-driven search was carried out by tracking the citations of each relevant article from
this core collection with the aim of covering the full gamut of the existing literature, 包括
blog posts and reports from funding agencies, editorials, comments, and opinion pieces. 这
screening process resulted in 36 (including the original 11) sources that met the following
criteria for inclusion: The papers should have a key focus on concentration or dispersal of
research funding at the grant, 单元, 团体, lab, or individual level. Papers focusing on na-
的, 区域性的, institutional, subdisciplinary, faculty, and department-level trends in funding
concentration were not included. 然而, papers on these matters have informed our dis-
批评. 更远, we excluded papers primarily focusing on differences between public and
private funding schemes, differences between competitive grants and block grants, 问题
related to gender, 年龄, and race diversity in funding, knowledge spillover effects of funding,
and arguments pertaining to agglomeration effects.1Although issues concerning concentra-
tion at the individual and group level are often touched upon in papers addressing the
abovementioned dimensions, these discussions are in most cases of secondary concern.

下一个, systematic semiautomated searches in Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus were car-
ried out. Based on the search strings presented in Tables A1 and A2, 3,567 potentially relevant
papers were retrieved from WoS and Scopus (数字 1). Of these, 840 were excluded due to
overlap between the databases. An additional 2,679 papers were excluded after reviewing
titles, abstracts, 和 (in instances of doubt) full texts.

The final sample consists of 92 文件 (see Appendix for the full list). Of these, 24 are pub-
lications with empirical data examining the association between funding size and research
表现, 30 are empirical publications without such a perspective, 10 are theoretical,
conceptual, review, or discussion-based papers, 和 28 are opinion-based short papers, 编辑-
itorial materials, comments, and blog posts, many of which come from NIH and other funding
器官.

3. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

In the following section, we detail temporal developments in the literature and map out var-
iations in the geographic and disciplinary orientation of the sampled articles.

3.1. Temporal Developments in the Literature

As visible in Figure 2, research on the concentration of research funding at the micro-level is
still an emerging strand of scientific inquiry. The number of publications explicitly targeting
this issue did not really take off before 2009, so far peaking in 2017 和 16 contributions.
因此, 73 在......之外 92 文件 (79%) were published in the past 10-year period. A similar tem-
poral trend becomes apparent when zeroing in on the narrow set of empirical studies exam-
ining the relation between funding size and the research performance of groups and
个人 (数字 3). 这里, 22 在......之外 24 identified studies (92%) were published in the period
从 2010 and onwards. This rapidly increasing interest in the topic is likely sparked by policy
trends reshaping the funding and reward system in the new millennium, including funding cuts
in the wake of the financial crisis (Alberts et al., 2014; Lepori et al., 2007), an intensified focus
on excellence (Moore et al., 2017), an oversupply of junior researchers in temporary positions

1 Agglomeration effects are here understood as geographical concentration of research capacities in science
地区, 地区, districts, clusters, and hubs with the aim to enhance scientific productivity (see Bonaccorsi &
Daraio, 2005; Hellström et al., 2017).

Quantitative Science Studies

119

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

数字 1. Flowchart of article inclusion and exclusion in the literature survey.

(例如, Cyranoski et al., 2011; 鲍威尔, 2015), and the increasing use of competition-based fund-
ing schemes (Aagaard, 2017; Heinze, 2008). In comparison, earlier scholarly debates appear
to have been more concerned with the consequences of science-internal drivers of concen-
翻译. For instance Ziman (1994) argued that powerful forces based on excellence were “en-
dogenous to science” and would lead to greater concentration over time. Also Merton’s (1968)
theory of “cumulative advantage” provided a predominantly science-internal prediction
model for intensified levels of concentration.

3.2. Geographic and Disciplinary Orientation

Although rapidly growing, the literature on the effects of funding concentration is by no means
covering the science system as a whole, neither from a geographic nor a disciplinary perspec-
主动的. The literature is heavily dominated by a North American orientation and a predominance
of contributions, with a primary emphasis on biomedicine. As depicted on the global map in
数字 4, the largest bulk of contributions (deep blue) originate from the United States (38), 的
which many are dealing with the practices of the NIH. 一般来说, more than half of the studies

Quantitative Science Studies

120

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

数字 2. General overview of temporal developments in research on the effects of funding concentration at individual and group levels.
笔记: N= 92. Our literature search was carried out in March 2018. 因此, the number of publications reported for 2018 is not representative
for the full year.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

focus on the US and Canadian science contexts. 更远, approximately one fourth of the pa-
pers (18) focus on European countries, of which nine examine the UK context. Other geo-
graphic regions are scarcely represented.

同样地, 这 92 studies cover a variety of disciplinary fields, but also here the representa-
tion is highly skewed. There is a clear predominance of contributions with a focus on the med-
ical sciences (biomedicine in particular). This main field is covered by 44 学习 (48% 的
total set), which either have the medical sciences as the sole focus or cover this field as part of
a focus on several main areas. Along the same lines, the natural sciences are covered by 32
学习 (35%), the technical sciences by 29 学习 (32%), and the social sciences and human-
ities by 13 学习 (14%). 最后, 25 学习 (27%) do not have a specific disciplinary
orientation.

数字 3. Developments in empirical research focusing on the relation between funding size and the research performance of groups and
个人.
笔记: N= 24. Our literature search was carried out in March 2018. 因此, the number of publications reported for 2018 is not representative
for the full year.

Quantitative Science Studies

121

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

数字 4. Geographical distribution of the literature.
笔记: The country-specific numbers presented on the map are based on a fractional counting. 例如, if a study focuses on three coun-
尝试, the value 0.33 is assigned to each country. Thirteen studies in the dataset do not provide specifications on national context. Three focus
on EU countries as a whole. 这些 16 studies are not included in the figure.

4. A CONDENSATION OF MAIN ARGUMENTS IN THE LITERATURE

Despite geographical and disciplinary gaps in the literature, the selected set of 92 文章
allows us to synthesize a number of key arguments in favor of concentration and dispersal. 在
下列, we first highlight the main arguments in favor of concentration of research fund-
英, followed by a section presenting the central arguments in favor of resource dispersion.

4.1. Key Arguments in Favor of Concentration of Research Funding

The literature offers surprisingly few unambiguous arguments in favor of a strong concentration
of research funding. Most contributions in which arguments in favor of concentration are pre-
sented seem to include them to offer a balanced discussion of both “pros” and “cons.” As
illustrated in Table 1, the arguments in favor of concentration can broadly be placed under
one of the following three main categories: (1) efficiency-related arguments, (2) arguments re-
lated to epistemic effects, 最后 (3) arguments concerning organizational issues. For pur-
poses of clarification, these categories are presented as analytically separate. 然而, 在
reality the arguments are often closely intertwined and difficult to disentangle.

4.1.1. Efficiency

The efficiency-related arguments are predominantly framed in economic terms and mostly
center on concepts such as critical mass and economies of scale. Following the rationale of
this type of argument, concentration of funding allows for the creation of critical mass in terms
of human resources, equipment, and infrastructure and for pooling of resources and expertise
for large-scale research projects that would otherwise be impossible to carry out (Bloch &
Sorensen, 2015; Bonaccorsi & Daraio, 2005; Breschi & Malerba, 2011). According to this strand
of argumentation, concentration is also promoted as a means to avoid the dilution of resources
and as a necessary precondition for efficiency in terms of larger scientific outputs (希克斯 & Katz,
2011; Johnston, 1994; Johnston et al., 1995; Vaesen & Katzav, 2017; von Tunzelmann et al.,

Quantitative Science Studies

122

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

桌子 1. Arguments in favor of concentration

Type of argument
Efficiency

争论

Need for critical mass/Risk
of dilution of resources

Concentration leads to
economies of scale

Fewer grants lead to smaller
administrative burden

Selected references

Hellström et al. (2017); Bonaccorsi &

Daraio (2005); Johnston et al. (1995);
希克斯 & Katz (2011); Vaesen & Katzav (2017;
Kenna & Berche (2011)

Hellström et al. (2017); Ida &

Fukuzawa (2013); Bloch et al. (2016)

伯格 (2012); Johnston (1994)

Epistemic effects

Achievement of scientific

Hellström et al. (2017); Bloch et al. (2016);

Organizational conditions

excellence

Concentration as natural
effect of merit-based
funding system

Stable funding flows allow

for flexible use of resources

Enables expansion of
collaborative ties

Positive spillover effects

of concentration

Facilitated recruitment

希克斯 & Katz (2011); Breschi & Malerba (2011);
Bloch & Sorensen (2015)

Hicks and Katz (2011); 伯格 (2012)

Hellström et al. (2017); Bonaccorsi & Daraio (2005)

Hellström et al. (2017); Bloch et al. (2016);

Bonaccorsi & Daraio (2005); Johnston (1994)

Bonaccorsi & Daraio (2005)

Hellström et al. (2017); Bloch et al. (2016);

Bonaccorsi & Daraio (2005); Johnston (1994)

Availability of critical research
infrastructure and equipment

Bonaccorsi & Daraio (2005); Gallo et al. (2014);

Johnston (1994)

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

2003). Others point at issues related to efficiency in terms of smaller administrative burdens
when funding is distributed in fewer and larger grant portions (Johnston, 1994). 例如,
伯格 (2012) describes how a policy aimed at reducing concentration at the U.S. 国家的
Institutes of Health was criticized for increasing the administrative burden. According to the cri-
打钩, the allocation of funding in smaller grants would require extra scrutiny and additional
resources for lengthy peer-review evaluation procedures.

4.1.2. Epistemic factors

Another line of argumentation is more explicitly concerned with epistemic factors or other
quality-related concepts, such as merit and excellence. 这里, the dominant argument is that
concentration of funding, and more generally selectivity in the distribution of resources, 将要
ensure that the most capable and productive scientists with the greatest potential to produce
world-class and path-breaking research results are rewarded according to their abilities (Bloch
& Sorensen, 2015; 希克斯 & Katz, 2011; Johnston et al., 1995). The underlying assumption is
that funding concentration is a necessary precondition for the creation and maintenance of
scientific excellence—in particular in an increasingly competitive and globalized science sys-
TEM, where research environments need to achieve or sustain a competitive edge (Bloch &

Quantitative Science Studies

123

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

桌子 2. Arguments in favor of dispersal

Type of argument

Efficiency

争论

Concentration leads to

diseconomies of scale

Diminishing marginal returns
as a result of concentration

Small and medium-sized

research groups are more
富有成效的

Selected references

伯格 (2012); Cook et al. (2015);

Lorsch (2015); Mongeon et al. (2016);
Lauer et al. (2015); Peifer (2017);
Fortin & 柯里 (2013); Bloch & Sorensen
(2015); Breschi & Malerba (2011);
Alberts (1985, 2012); Bonaccorsi &
Daraio (2005)

Mongeon et al. (2016); Breschi & Malerba
(2011); Lorsch (2015); Fortin & 柯里
(2013); Cook et al. (2015); 伯格 (2010乙,
2012); Peifer (2017); Alberts (2012)

Cook et al. (2015); Vaesen & Katzav (2017);
von Tunzelmann et al. (2003); Johnston
(1994); Bloch et al. (2016); Bloch &
Sorensen (2015); Alberts (1985)

Excess size leads to fragmentation,

Alberts (1985); Breschi & Malerba (2011);

inertia, and inefficiencies

Innovative researchers are
turned into fundraisers
and managers

Concentration leads to allocative
and economic inefficiencies

Bloch & Sorensen (2015); Mongeon et al.
(2016); Fortin & 柯里 (2013); Vaesen &
Katzav (2017); Johnston (1994)

Kimble et al. (2015); Bloch & Sorensen (2015);

Alberts (1985)

Nag et al. (2013); Bloch & Sorensen (2015);

希克斯 & Katz (2011); Sousa (2008); Mongeon
等人. (2016)

Epistemic effects

Diversification spreads risk and

Fortin & 柯里 (2013), Lorsch (2015);

increases chances of breakthroughs

劳尔 (2014); Fang & Casadevall (2016);
Peifer (2017); Ioannidis (2011); Vaesen
& Katzav (2017); 伯格 (2012); Mongeon
等人. (2016); Fang & Casadevall (2016)

Dispersal of funding as means to
avoid mainstream, risk-averse
研究

von Tunzelmann et al. (2003); Kimble et al.
(2015); Peifer (2017); Bloch & Sorensen
(2015); Alberts et al. (2014)

Organizational issues/
system level issues

Dispersal keeps researchers and
students active with research

Fortin & 柯里 (2013); 劳尔 (2014);

Vaesen & Katzav (2017)

Dispersal secures a strong growth
layer of early and mid-career
研究人员

Peifer (2017); Fang & Casadevall (2016);

伯格 (2012); Alberts (1985)

Dispersal leads to a broader

Fortin & 柯里 (2013); Vaesen & Katzav

knowledge pool and greater
research breadth + pockets of
excellence

(2017); Bloch & Sorensen (2015); Kimble
等人. (2015); Katz & Matter (2017);
劳尔 (2014)

Dispersal reduces Matthew Effects/

cumulative advantages and
hypercompetition

伯格 (2012); Fang & Casadevall (2016);
Bloch et al. (2016); Bol et al. (2018)

Quantitative Science Studies

124

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

桌子 2. (continued )

Type of argument

争论

Selected references

Problems with grant peer

review and allocation procedures

Peer reviewers unable to identify
the most promising projects

Vaesen & Katzav (2017); Kimble et al. (2015);
Fang & Casadevall (2016); Lorsch (2015);
Katz & Matter (2017); Gordon & Poulin
(2009A, 2009乙); Alberts et al. (2014)

More egalitarian distribution of
funding is possible without
dilution

Fortin & 柯里 (2013); Gordon & Poulin
(2009A, 乙); Ioannidis (2011); Vaesen &
Katzav (2017)

Sorensen, 2015; Johnston et al., 1995). Other studies that focus on Centers of Excellence (CoE)
arrive at similar conclusions and generally find positive epistemic effects of resource concen-
tration in large units (Bloch et al., 2016; Hellström et al., 2017; Ida & Fukuzawa, 2013). 和
regard to the merit-based arguments, the work by Hicks and Katz (2011) stands out among the
selected articles with the most unambiguous support for stronger concentration. 作者
argue that R&D funding—due to a purported inequality aversion inherent in the funding
system and among policymakers—tends to be more equally distributed than would be justified
by differences in output measures such as publications and citations. 因此, Hicks and Katz
(2011) see concentration as a natural and desirable consequence of a merit-based funding system
that follows a power-law distribution of productivity and resources (Lotka, 1926).

4.1.3. Organizational conditions

A third group of arguments in favor of concentration places explicit emphasis on organiza-
tional conditions. Here the main assumption is that large grants and the concentration of in-
vestments in large research units give researchers the necessary resource availability and
flexibility to conduct innovative, high-risk, and high-impact research (Bonaccorsi & Daraio,
2005; Hellström et al., 2017). 在本质上, the combination of funding stability and flexibility
is perceived to facilitate autonomy, availability of cooperative partners, and concomitant col-
laboration (Bloch et al., 2016; Bonaccorsi & Daraio, 2005; Hellström et al., 2017). In partic-
他们是, the shift from individual toward collective modes of research (from small science to big
科学) is seen as a development that is dependent on selectivity and concentration in the
allocation of research funding (Johnston, 1994). This argument also emphasizes growth in ex-
penditures for equipment and infrastructure. 因此, access to expensive physical infrastruc-
ture is also part of the call for critical mass and concentration of resources in large units
(Bonaccorsi & Daraio, 2005; Gallo et al., 2014; Johnston, 1994). 最后, the presence of fund-
ing concentration is also expected to increase international visibility and attractiveness in the
sense that stable financial conditions can attract top-quality researchers and talents and may
support organizational robustness (good governance and professional academic leadership;
Bloch et al., 2016; Bonaccorsi & Daraio, 2005; Hellström et al., 2017; 希克斯 & Katz, 2011).

4.2. Key Arguments in Favor of Dispersal of Research Funding

The vast majority of the identified articles, whether empirical, conceptual/theoretical, editorials,
or comments, lean toward arguments in favor of dispersal of funding. 如表所示 2, 这
arguments can here also be subsumed under the same three categories: (1) efficiency, (2) epistemic
effects, 和 (3) organizational issues (although in this third category we also include arguments

Quantitative Science Studies

125

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

explicitly targeting the systemic level). 此外, we include a fourth category concerned with
problems pertaining to peer review and allocation procedures. 因此, most of the arguments
presented here can be seen as the flipside of the arguments in favor of concentration.

4.2.1. Efficiency

Under the broad heading of efficiency, we find a substantial number of contributions highlight-
ing that concentration of research funding may in fact lead to diseconomies of scale (Bloch et al.,
2016; Bonaccorsi & Daraio, 2005; Johnston et al., 1995; Nag et al., 2013; von Tunzelmann
等人。, 2003). As we describe in section 5, the majority of extant empirical research finds little
or no convincing evidence to justify funding policies aimed at concentrating resources to
achieve economic efficiency (Bonaccorsi & Daraio, 2005; von Tunzelmann et al., 2003).
These studies show that concentration of funding, 一般, leads to decreasing marginal re-
轮流 (measured by the number of citations and impact factors) above a certain threshold (厨师
等人。, 2015; Fortin & 柯里, 2013; Lorsch, 2015). 相应地, numerous empirical studies
suggest that research productivity can be increased by spreading out funding on many small
and medium-sized research teams, averaging from around five to eight group members (Bloch
等人。, 2016; Johnston, 1994; Johnston et al., 1995; von Tunzelmann et al., 2003). For further
discussion of the available empirical evidence, 参见部分 5.

Another central efficiency-related argument in favor of resource dispersal is that the excess
size of research projects, consortia, 团体, and grants can lead to fragmentation within groups
and cumbersome levels of administration (Alberts, 1985; Breschi & Malerba, 2011; Nag et al.,
2013). 相似地, Alberts (1985) early on pointed out that concentration of funding may turn
group leaders in big research teams into “science managers” who spend nearly all their time
on grant writing, science administration, and organizational matters, leaving little time for do-
ing actual research and mentoring students and junior staff (see also Kimble et al., 2015).
最后, several authors allude to what they claim to be allocative and economic inefficiencies
in the funding and reward system of science, as scientists who have already secured funding
are incentivized to apply for and obtain resources over and above what they can productively
spend (Bloch & Sorensen, 2015; 希克斯 & Katz, 2011; Sousa, 2008).

4.2.2. Epistemic effects

Arguments related to epistemic effects figure even more prominently in the literature advocat-
ing for dispersal. 这里, a key claim is that spreading out grants among many researchers and
supporting a greater number of investigators at moderate funding levels is a better investment
strategy that yields higher research outputs with stronger impact than concentrating large
amounts of resources on fewer scientists (Fortin & 柯里, 2013; Gallo et al., 2014; 劳尔,
2014; Lorsch, 2015). According to proponents of this funding strategy, diversity in research
investments spreads risk and thereby increases the chances of scientific breakthroughs (Fang
& Casadevall, 2016; Lorsch, 2015; Peifer, 2017). Along the lines of this argument, each grant
recipient is seen as an experiment, meaning that a larger number of grantees will increase the
number of experiments (Fortin & 柯里, 2013). 另一方面, the so-called “few big”
strategy is perceived as risky because it reduces the number of experiments by concentrating
funding on selected research areas, and by supporting investigators or research projects that
might not necessarily have the greatest scientific potential (Bloch & Sorensen, 2015; Fortin &
柯里, 2013). 反过来, the essence of the “many small” strategy is that support for a wide
web of research will increase the chances of making important discoveries, as diversity offers
varying perspectives, 解释, heuristics, and prediction models (Lorsch, 2015).

Quantitative Science Studies

126

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

Dispersal of funding is here seen as a way to foster resilience in a system that constantly shifts
and adapts (von Tunzelmann et al., 2003). Increased concentration of funding, 在另一
手, is argued to lead to both stasis and closure, resulting in a system less capable of adaption
and to a suppression of both creativeness and risk-taking. 所以, to avoid mainstream, 风险-
averse, and less imaginative research, it is argued that it is desirable to provide funding for
many different types of research and thereby allow for a variety of competing approaches
(Kimble et al., 2015; Peifer, 2017).

4.2.3. Organizational (and systemic) 问题

The articles in favor of dispersal and diversity also point to a number of arguments tied to
organizational and systemic issues. 最为显着地, it is highlighted that funding more scientists
creates a more diverse research ecology and provides students with a larger range of oppor-
统一 (Fortin & 柯里, 2013; 劳尔, 2014; Vaesen & Katzav, 2017). 因此, a higher degree of
dispersal of grant funding will serve to keep more students and scientists active in research
(Fortin & 柯里, 2013) and contribute to secure a strong growth layer of early and mid-career
研究人员, which is seen as a prerequisite for maintaining viable institutions and a healthy
overall scientific ecosystem (伯格, 2012; Fang & Casadevall, 2016). Concentration of funding,
on the contrary, is here seen to endanger the next generation of scientists, who cannot com-
pete with the track records, the amount of resources, and availability of scientific staff of their
senior colleagues (Kimble et al., 2015; Peifer, 2017). 此外, disproportionate financial
support for highly specialized research areas within narrowly defined disciplinary boundaries
results in a lack of diversity of disciplinary fields and scientific approaches and might come
at the expense of advancement within other equally or potentially more promising research areas
(Bloch & Sorensen, 2015). 通过对比, policies aimed at targeting diversity are perceived to
secure a broader knowledge pool and a greater research breadth where seed money is provided
for researchers within smaller research fields, allowing pockets of excellence to grow outside of
prioritized areas (Bloch & Sorensen, 2015). 最后, it is suggested that increased dispersal of
funding will reduce trends toward hypercompetition and serve to curb the Matthew Effects
and mechanisms of cumulative advantage already inherent in the science system (Fang &
Casadevall, 2016). 此外, Johnston (1994) recounts Lowe’s (1991) argument that con-
centration of funding creates units that become self-perpetuating “…thereby reducing the
capacity of the research funding system to respond flexibly to changing priorities” (Lowe,
1991: 187 in Johnston, 1994: 28).

4.2.4. Problems with grant peer review and allocation procedures

The fourth and final group of arguments questions the functioning of existing review and al-
location procedures, and the assumption that the best researchers are rewarded according to
their abilities. 因此, these arguments both relate to discussions of efficiency and epistemic
effects. 这里, it is highlighted that grant peer review is not only an expensive and resource-
demanding process, but also unreliable and subject to a number of biases (Fang & Casadevall,
2016; Gordon & Poulin, 2009A; Kimble et al., 2015; Vaesen & Katzav, 2017). 同样地, 这是
suggested that low success rates induce conservative, short-term thinking among applicants,
reviewers, and funders (Alberts et al., 2014). As pointed out by Alberts et al. (2014) “[t]他
system now favors those who can guarantee results rather than those with potentially path-
breaking ideas that, by definition, cannot promise success” (p. 5774). 此外, 伯格
(2012) highlights that although many funding bodies try to avoid overlaps between new
and already funded projects, reviewers often do not have access to portfolio data on which
they can take informed funding decisions. 反而, reviewers tend to reward past performers

Quantitative Science Studies

127

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

and disadvantage applicants with a poorer track record at the expense of potentially promising
research projects (Bloch & Sorensen, 2015). As a result many meritorious projects remain un-
funded and undone (Fang & Casadevall, 2016; Gordon & Poulin, 2009A). 因此, a number of
authors call for a reform of the current system and some even for a replacement of grant peer
review with a more egalitarian distribution of funding (Fang & Casadevall, 2016; Fortin &
柯里, 2013; Gordon & Poulin, 2009A, 乙; Vaesen & Katzav, 2017).

5. EMPIRICAL STUDIES EXAMINING EFFECTS OF FUNDING SIZE ON
RESEARCH PERFORMANCE

As should be clear from the preceding sections, a large bulk of the literature on concentration
and dispersal of research funding is dominated by theoretical and opinion-based arguments.
然而, a subset of empirical studies also attempts to examine the direct effects of funding
size on the research performance of groups and individuals. We identified 24 articles address-
ing this particular issue (桌子 3). Some parts of this literature are characterized by conflicting
and inconsistent results, which may be explained by differences in research design, dissimi-
larities in how “research performance” and “funding size” are conceptualized and measured,
and variations in funding mechanisms across geographical, institutional and disciplinary con-
文本. 尽管如此, by far most studies exhibit stagnant or decreasing returns to scale for the
relationship between funding size and research performance.

In line with the broader literature, studies based on data from the United States and Canada
are overrepresented in this subset. Twelve studies focus on a North American science context,
six are based on European data, four focus on Asian countries, one focuses on South Africa,
and one employs a global perspective. Twenty-two of the studies are based on observation
data and two use cross-sectional survey data. Ten of the 24 studies are based on bivariate
correlations between input and output measures, 和 14 employ multivariate statistical anal-
分析, matching techniques, and difference-in-differences estimations to adjust for possible
confounders. Performance is in most cases measured by research output (IE。, number of pub-
lications; N= 16) or citation impact (N= 12), and to a lesser extent by journal impact factors
(N= 4), journal rankings (N= 1), and patents (N= 1).

Nineteen studies examine correlations between the size of research grants and scientific
表现. Of these, 17 demonstrate either a negative association, no discernible effect,
or stagnant or diminishing returns to investment for grant sizes above a certain threshold
(Arora et al., 1998; Asonuma & Urata, 2015; 伯格, 2010A, 乙; Bloch et al., 2016; Breschi &
Malerba, 2011; Danthi et al., 2015; Doyle et al., 2015; Fedderke & 戈德施密特, 2015;
Fortin & 柯里, 2013; Gallo et al., 2014; Jung et al., 2017; Lauer et al., 2015, 2017;
Mongeon et al., 2016; Nag et al., 2013; Spanos & Vonortas, 2012). This threshold appears
to vary considerably depending on field- and country-specific characteristics. 例如,
using data on 2,938 grants from the U.S. National Institute of General Medical Sciences,
伯格 (2010A, 乙) shows that the research output and average journal impact factor per lab de-
creases with funding above ∼$750,000, and that funding above ∼$250,000–300,000 is asso-
ciated with only modest increases in research performance. In comparison, Doyle and
colleagues exhibit diminishing returns to investment for basic research with grant sizes above
∼$4.5 million in a sample of 1,755 R01 projects funded by the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health. The remaining two studies on grant size and scientific performance report positive effects, but none of these look into possible inflection points for diminishing marginal returns (Katz & Matter, 2017; Yan et al., 2018). Quantitative Science Studies 128 l 从http下载 : / / 直接的 . 米特 . / e d u q s s / 文章 – p d l f / / / / 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 6 0 7 8 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 0 0 2 压力 . / 来宾来访 0 7 九月 2 0 2 3 Q u a n t i t a i t i v e S c e n c e S u d e s t i C o n c e n t r a t i o n o r d i s p e r s a l o f r e s e a r c h f u n d i n g ? 桌子 3. Empirical studies on the relation between funding size and scientific performance Reference Arora et al. (1998) Study type Study population/sample Country Observation Italy 797 research units applying to a research program in biotechnology and bioinstrumentation funded by the National Research Council in Italy Time period 1989– 1993 Focus Link between size of units/size of research funds and research output Asonuma & Urata (2015) Observation Berg (2010A, 乙) Observation Competitive and Basic research funds for Japanese researchers in 1992 和 2007 2,938 investigators/labs receiving grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences in 2006 Japan NS USA 2007– 2010 Bloch et al. (2016) Observation 57 Centers of excellence (CoE) funded by the Danish National Research Foundation Denmark 1993– 2011 Link between amount of funding and research output Link between grant size and research output/average journal impact factor Link between grant size and research output and citation impact Results Adjusting for multiple potential confounders, the study finds that unit size does not affect research output. The study, 然而, finds that “a more unequal distribution of research funds would increase research output in the short-run” Finds diminishing returns in terms of research output per researcher with increasing amounts of funding Finds that research output and the average journal impact factor per lab decrease with funding above ∼$750,000.
Research output and the
average journal impact factor
per lab increased modestly
with funding above
∼$250,000–300,000). Finds that larger CoEs have higher average citation impact and more top-cited papers. However panel data indicate that the citation performance on both metrics decrease over the course of the granting period for the largest CoE, while increasing for the smallest 50%. The authors estimate that the optimal annual grant size is A1.45 million. 相似地, they estimate that the average citation impact of CoEs peaks at 6.7 grant years Breschi & Observation Malerba (2011) 734 European Commission FP6 projects funded by Europe NS Link between project size, In negative binomial regression models, a slight positive 1 2 9 l 从http下载 : / / 直接的 . 米特 . / e d u q s s / 文章 – p d l f / / / / 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 6 0 7 8 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 0 0 2 压力 . / 来宾来访 0 7 九月 2 0 2 3 桌子 3. (continued ) Reference Study type Study population/sample Country the Information Society and Media Directorate Time period Focus grant size, and research output Q u a n t i t a i t i v e S c e n c e S u d e s t i Danthi et al. (2015) Doyle et al. (2015) Observation 623 de novo R01 grants USA funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in 2009 distributed on 458 payline grants and 165 ARRA grants Observation 1,755 de novo investigator- USA initiated R01 grants funded for at least 2 years by the National Institute of Mental Health between 2000 和 2009 2009– 2014 Link between grant size and field- normalized citation impact (comparing the citation impact of payline grants (median funding: ($1.87 百万) 与.
ARRA grants
(median funding:
$1.03 百万) 2000– 2009 Link between grant size and citation impact Fedderke & Observation Goldschmidt (2015) 76 research chairs awarded by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa. 67 South Africa 2009– 2012 Link between grant success and research output 1 3 0 C o n c e n t r a t i o n o r d i s p e r s a l o f r e s e a r c h f u n d i n g ? Results association is found between the proportion of university- based project partners and research output and between average grant size per partner and scientific output. 更远, the study shows diminishing returns of the number of project participants on research output with an estimated inflection point at 52 参与者. The log of total funding per project also indicates diminishing returns of increasing grant sizes Adjusting for potential confounders, the study finds that ARRA and payline grants have similar normalized citation impact per $1 million spent

Finds an association between
total award-dollars per grant
and normalized citation
impact, but with diminishing
marginal returns. 使用
forest regressions, 这
study finds decreasing
grant size to be one of the
three most important
predictors of returns to
investment on citation
impact per $ million spent Finds that funding success is associated with moderate gains in publication and citation rates compared to l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / 直接的 . 米特 . / e d u q s s / 文章 – p d l f / / / / 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 6 0 7 8 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 0 0 2 压力 . / 来宾来访 0 7 九月 2 0 2 3 Q u a n t i t a i t i v e S c e n c e S u d e s t i A-rated researchers without NRF chairs. 157 B-rated researchers without NRF chairs Fortin & Currie Observation 374 individual researchers Canada (2013) in three biology, chemistry and ecology disciplines funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada in 2002 2002– 2007 researchers at equivalent standing without chairs. A comparison of high- performing researchers with and without chairs (based on propensity-score matching) indicates that the costs of each additional publication for funding recipients is 22 times as high as for equivalent researchers without funding. 更远, the additional cost per citation is 32 times as high. Link between Funding size “accounts for grant size and research output and citation impact Gallo et al. (2014) Observation 227 projects funded by USA the American Institute of Biological Sciences 2004– 2011 Link between grant size and total- relative citation impact (TRC) Gaughan & Observation 436 PhD level scientists USA NS How center funding Bozeman (2002) and engineers in biotechnology and microelectronics-related with funding grants. Of these 177 are recipients of NSF center grants influences individual researchers’ research output 1 3 1 C o n c e n t r a t i o n o r d i s p e r s a l o f r e s e a r c h f u n d i n g ? l 从http下载 : / / 直接的 . 米特 . / e d u q s s / 文章 – p d l f / / / / 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 6 0 7 8 5 q s s _ a _ 0 0 0 0 2 压力 . / 来宾来访 0 7 九月 2 0 2 3 between R-square = 0.03 to R-square = 0.28 of the among- researcher variation in impact” (IE。, citation impact). Average scientific impact generally decreased with funding size. Receiving additional funds other federal granting councils did not result in higher scientific impact The study created nine levels of funding in $400,000 increments,
comparing the average TRC
per winning application for each
等级. The study found no
statistically significant difference
in TRC across the funding levels.
The total annual TRC correlated
moderately with the number of
funded applications, but not with
the total annual programmatic
预算.

Adjusting for potential confounders,
the study finds no association
between center funding and
research output. 然而, 拥有
another type of government or
foundation grant is associated
with increasing research output,
but the effect is small. 一般来说,
grant volume slightly (IE。, 数字
of grants) improves performance.

桌子 3. (continued )

参考

Study type

Study population/sample

国家

Gök et al. (2016)

Observation

欧洲

All researchers from BE,
DK, NL, NO, CH,
and SE with publications
in WoS in the period
2009–2011 (242,406
文章)

时间
时期
2009–
2011

问
你
A
n

t
我
t

A

我

t
我
v
e
S
C
e
n
C
e
S
你
d
e
s

t

我

Focus

结果

Link between funding
intensity/funding
variety and citation
impact per paper

Ida & Fukuzawa

Observation

374 Japanese research

日本

(2013)

团队, of which some
were funded as
Centers of Excellence

1997–
2008

Comparing the impact
of CoE funding on
research output
and citation
impact

C
哦
n
C
e
n
t
r
A
t
我
哦
n

哦
r

d
我
s
p
e
r
s
A
我

哦
F

r
e
s
e
A
r
C
H

F
你
n
d
我
n
G
?

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

In per-country logistic regressions

adjusting for country of
共同作者, broad subject
类别, number of authors,
and publication year the study
finds a negative association
between funding intensity (IE。,
the number of funding sources
acknowledged in a paper/
number of authors) 和每-
paper citation rates. A positive
association is shown between
funding variety (IE。, “number
of funders/the number of unique
funders per each paper”) 和
citation impact

Comparing the citation and
publication rates of CoE
participants before and after
资金 (difference in
difference) 与
performance a control group,
the study finds a positive
association between CoE
funding and research output in
four out of eight scientific fields.
更远, it shows a positive
association between CoE
funding and citation impact in
three out of eight fields. 在里面
remaining fields no statistically
significant association between
CoE funding and research
output and impact is demonstrated,
with one exception: the study
shows a negative association
between CoE funding and citation
impact in mathematics and physics

Jung et al. (2017)

Observation

Researchers receiving
grants from South
Korea’s National Research
Foundation between

South Korea NS

Link between amount

In regressions adjusting for

of funding and
journal impact factor
and journal ranking

multiple confounders, the study
finds that funding size correlates
slightly negatively with journal

1
3
2

问
你
A
n

t
我
t

A

我

t
我
v
e
S
C
e
n
C
e
S
你
d
e
s

t

我

Katz & Matter

Observation

(2017)

2003 和 2009. 分析
was based on 3228
published paper

Recipients of NIH R grants
in the period 2005–2010.
N is not specified for the
given period of analysis,
but the data are taken
from a larger sample of
几乎 90,000 NIH-
funded projects between
1985 和 2015

美国

2005–
2010

impact factor per paper and
journal ranking per paper

Link between

Finds that the most highly funded

distribution of
funding and
scientific output

Langfeldt et al.

Observation

12 Scandinavian

Scandinavia NA

Link between CoE

(2015)

Centers of Excellence.
Performance is
测量的 5 年
prior to and after
the establishment of
the CoEs

grants and research
输出, normalized
journal impact, 和
normalized citation
impact

Lauer et al. (2015) Observation

6873 de novo

美国

cardiovascular R01
grants funded by
the National Heart,
Lung, and Blood
Institute between
1980 和 2011

1980–
2011

Link between grant
size and citation
impact (in terms of
顶部 10% 最多
cited papers)

Lauer et al. (2017) Observation

71,936 researchers funded
by the NIH between
1996 和 2014

美国

1996–
2014

Link between grant
size and citation
impact (测量的
by three metrics)

1
3
3

C
哦
n
C
e
n
t
r
A
t
我
哦
n

哦
r

d
我
s
p
e
r
s
A
我

哦
F

r
e
s
e
A
r
C
H

F
你
n
d
我
n
G
?

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

R-grant recipients have a
considerably larger number
of publications than less
funded recipients, accumulate
a larger number of citations,
and have more publications in
the most prestigious journals.
The study does not look into
possible inflection points for
diminishing marginal returns

Based on descriptive analysis, 它
is concluded that “CoE grants
seem to have limited impact
for some already high-
performing and distinguished
团体 (……) [时间]he status and
opportunities offered by the
CoE grant add less to the
situation of some of the
highest performing groups,
than for less recognized
groups”

Finds an association between
annual total budget per
project and citation impact
in terms of field-normalized
顶部 10% most cited papers,
but with varying marginal
returns depending on funding
尺寸. Finds an association
between total grant budget
and top 10% most cited
paper rates but with
diminishing returns on
投资

Finds diminishing returns in
terms of citation impact
with increasing grant sizes

问
你
A
n

t
我
t

A

我

t
我
v
e
S
C
e
n
C
e
S
你
d
e
s

t

我

桌子 3. (continued )

参考
Mongeon et al.

(2016)

Study type
Observation

Study population/sample

国家

12,720 unique funding
recipients in Quebec
之间 1998 和 2012

加拿大

时间
时期
2000–
2013

Focus

Link between grant
size and research
output and citation
impact

Nag et al. (2013)

Cross-sectional

720 bioscientists performing

美国

survey

agriculturally related
molecular or cellular
level research (全部的
sample 1,441)

2003–
2006

Link between

financial support/
lab size and
research output

1
3
4

C
哦
n
C
e
n
t
r
A
t
我
哦
n

哦
r

d
我
s
p
e
r
s
A
我

哦
F

r
e
s
e
A
r
C
H

F
你
n
d
我
n
G
?

结果

Finds that increasing research
funding yields decreasing
marginal returns with respect
to research output and
citation impact (including top
10% most cited) in health
研究, science and
engineering research, 和
social science research. 这
study concludes that
researchers receiving a
moderate amount of funding
provide the best returns
in terms of research output
and citation impact per dollar

Adjusting for multiple potential
confounders, the study finds
that that the mean
bioscience laboratory “is too
large to make efficient use
of its resources.” A 10%
boost in laboratory budget
results in a 7.5% increase in
article output

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

问
你
A
n

t
我
t

A

我

t
我
v
e
S
C
e
n
C
e
S
你
d
e
s

t

我

Shibayama (2011) Observation

Projects supported by

日本

Spanos & Vonortas

Cross-sectional

(2012)

survey

the Japanese Grants-
in-Aid since 1965,
(IE。, approx. 600,000
grants and 210,000
funded university
研究人员)

Randomly selected
sample of 54,492
participating organizations
funded through the
European Framework
Programme 5 和 6.
Final sample employed
in the analysis: 583/586
组织

C
哦
n
C
e
n
t
r
A
t
我
哦
n

哦
r

d
我
s
p
e
r
s
A
我

哦
F

r
e
s
e
A
r
C
H

F
你
n
d
我
n
G
?

2001–
2005

Efficiency of funding

distribution in terms
of research output

Finds inequality in research
资金 (calculated by the
Gini-coefficient) to be larger
than the inequality in
research output (calculated
by the Gini-coefficient) 在
institutional level (0.845 与
0.919) and at the level of the
individual researcher (0.592
与. 0.685).

欧洲

2006

Link between

Adjusting for multiple project-

funding size/N
project partners
and research
output/
技术性的
输出 (patents)

level controls, the study does
not find a statistically significant
relationship between funding
size and research output or
technological output and
number of project partners
and research output or
technologic output

Funding size is found to increase
citation impact considerably.
Number of funding sources
is a weak predictor of citation
impact

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Yan et al. (2018)

Observation

Five core journals

from seven STEMM
学科

International 2010–
2016

Link between
funding size
and citation
impact

1
3
5

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

Three of the abovementioned studies also analyze associations between the size of funded
项目 (in terms of number of people) and research performance. Of these, one study reports
a statistically insignificant effect (Arora et al., 1998), and two show diminishing returns to scale
as the number of project partners and participants increases (Breschi & Malerba, 2011; Nag
等人。, 2013).

One study reports a slight positive association between per-researcher “grant volume” (IE。,
number of grants per researcher) and research output (Gaughan & Bozeman, 2002), 和-
other exhibits a negative association between per-paper funding intensity (IE。, number of
funding sources acknowledged in an article divided by the number of authors) and citation
impact, and a positive association between per-paper funding variety (IE。, the proportion of
unique funders acknowledged in an article) and citation impact (Gök et al., 2016).

Two studies analyze how large-scale grants funded through Centers of Excellence (CoE)
influence research performance. One of them exhibits a positive association between CoE
funding and research output in four out of eight scientific fields (Ida & Fukuzawa, 2013);
the other finds that already successful research groups are less likely to see benefits of CoE
grants (in terms of performance) than less recognized research groups (Langfeldt et al., 2015).

最后, one study analyzes publication and funding data for a large sample of university
researchers and finds that researcher inequality in funding is significantly larger than re-
searcher inequality in publication output (Shibayama, 2011).

总之, our systematic survey of existing empirical research exhibits little compelling
evidence of increasing returns to investment. A few studies demonstrate a positive association
between grant size and project size on the one hand, and bibliometric indices of scientific
performance on the other. 然而, none of these studies look into possible inflection points
for increasing or diminishing marginal returns. In comparison, a substantial part of the litera-
ture exhibits tangible evidence of stagnant or decreasing returns on research output and im-
pact for grant sizes above a certain threshold, although this threshold appears to vary
considerably, depending on field- and country-specific characteristics. 最后, 两个都
“too small” and “too large” research grants seem unfavorable if “returns to scale” are measured
based on traditional, bibliometric approaches to science evaluation.

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Concerns about the implications of funding concentration are not new to the science-policy
文学. Already in 1994, Johnston observed that “the widespread introduction of policies of
resource concentration around the world [曾是] found to have been based on little examined
assumptions and in operation to be at times counter-productive” (p. 25). As shown in sections
3 和 4, such criticisms have become increasingly prevalent in the literature, especially in
light of the recent transformations in the science-policy landscape. Although our knowledge
of the exact extent of trends toward funding concentration within the science system remains
不完整的, a thorough examination of the potential consequences of this development seems
timely and warranted.

To our knowledge, no attempts have thus far been made to thoroughly examine the full
body of empirical and theoretically driven arguments concerning the implications of funding
concentration at the group and individual level. With the objective to provide more tangible
guidance for policy, our review targets this gap in knowledge by presenting the first systematic
survey of the literature on the effects of funding concentration.

Quantitative Science Studies

136

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

6.1. Overall Findings

合在一起, extant research on this topic is characterized by a rather strong inclination
toward arguments in favor of increased dispersal of funding. 反过来, limited support is
found for arguments of economies of scale related to high levels of funding concentration.
更远, the presumed positive epistemic effects of high degrees of funding selectivity are con-
经测试, and the expected organizational benefits do not as a general rule appear to outweigh
the suggested drawbacks.

Although many of the arguments for and against funding concentration are opinion-based,
a substantial number of empirical studies also indicate that spreading out funding on smaller
grants, 一般, yields better performance than distributing funding in fewer and larger
grant portions. 这里, it is worth noting that the empirical research on the relation between
funding size and research performance primarily measures scientific output by way of standard
bibliometric indicators of impact (IE。, citation indicators, journal impact factors, and journal
rankings). 因此, there is reason to believe that the suggested benefits of dispersal draw a
conservative picture, because the abovementioned indicators may suppress cognitive diversity
and be biased against scientific novelty (Yegros-Yegros et al., 2015; 王等人。, 2017).
更远, bibliometric data provide a narrow understanding of research performance. Fully cap-
turing the benefits and drawbacks of funding concentration would require more careful atten-
tion to the potential implications for the research questions raised, the topics addressed and
methods employed in scientific knowledge-making, as well as the ability of the scientific en-
terprise to address prevalent societal needs and expectations. It should also be kept in mind
that our knowledge of these issues primarily comes from the North American region and the
biomedical field. 尽管如此, with caution, many of the general lessons derived from this
paper appear to be of relevance across fields and national contexts.

然而, reducing the issue of funding size to a simple question of evidence for or against
concentration would be to oversimplify a complex and multifaceted problem. The “proper”
balance between concentration and dispersal of research funding may be more accurately
described as a matter of degree: Both too small and too large grant sizes appear to be ineffi-
cient in both economic and epistemic terms. Notwithstanding, the available research suggest
that the funding levels needed to achieve a “critical mass” may not necessarily be very high.
因此, a key question concerns where the “sweet spot” (or preferred region) in the balance
between concentration and dispersal is to be found (页, 2014). Given the presumed benefits
of funding dispersal with respect to diversity, there is an urgent need for more thorough and
systematic examinations of how much diversity and which forms of diversity that could ac-
commodate a more robust, 创新的, and forward-moving scientific system (页, 2014).
The optimal balances are, 然而, likely to be dependent on both field-specific characteris-
tics and factors related to the overall configuration of national funding systems.

6.2. Lack of Consistency, Cross-referencing and Theoretical Elaboration

Although the reviewed literature presents a fairly strong case against funding concentration, 它
is critical to emphasize the limitations of the available knowledge. As demonstrated, the liter-
ature is fragmented and characterized by conceptual, terminological, and methodological in-
consistencies and shortcomings.

As described in section 5 (and above in relation to the bibliometric output measures), 部分
of the problem can be linked to differences (and weaknesses) in research designs and dissim-
ilarities in how “research performance” and “funding size” are conceptualized and measured.

Quantitative Science Studies

137

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

Although there is certainly room for improvement with respect to these issues, the key limitation
of the literature concerns its lack of consistency, cross-referencing, and theoretical elaboration.
Although variations in funding and governance mechanisms across geographical, institutional,
and disciplinary contexts naturally lead to different ways of approaching and addressing the
issues at stake, the differing contexts are no excuse for not consulting the relevant, more ge-
neric science-policy and funding literature. Unfortunately most of the reviewed articles fall
into this trap. They do not as a general rule attempt to engage with the broader science-policy
文学, nor existing research on funding concentration. This limitation is further amplified by
the fact that the included opinion pieces, editorials, and comments all can be situated somewhat
at the outskirts of more traditional scholarly debates, and are thus easily overlooked in systematic
searches. 作为结果, we find limited progress in academic discussions of funding concen-
翻译, which in most cases only sparsely build on previous contributions. 更远, we observe a
lack of agreement on key terms and hence a general fragmentation of the available knowledge.
These limitations are also visible when studying developments in the literature over time. 那里
are relatively few common references across contributions—and the ones we find are often quite
old and perfunctory, such as classical sociology of science contributions by Merton (1968) 和
Cole and Cole (1973). 因此, another limitation concerns the relatively weak theoretical
grounding and elaboration of most existing contributions. This limitation is particularly evident
in discussions of the causes of the observed developments and in discussions of potential rem-
edies. Our final section highlights key theoretical issues that deserve greater consideration in
future studies.

6.3. Attention to Factors Influencing Degrees of Concentration

The results presented in this review provide compelling reasons to discuss whether and to
what extent the current funding system needs to be adjusted to mitigate further trends toward
concentration. We argue that the need for more thorough investigations of how to balance
concentration and dispersal of research funding should be accompanied by a more nuanced
understanding of how different types of competition interact to shape allocation patterns and
eventually research practices. An accurate understanding of these mechanisms is a prerequi-
site for effective policy interventions.

The accelerating concentration of funding is not merely the result of conscious and explicit
policy decisions (例如, to allocate funding in fewer and larger portions, or to increase the level
of funding allocated in competition). It may also be driven by internal Matthew Effects in the
reward system of science. 更远, growing concentration may be an inadvertent consequence
of uncoordinated grant decisions made in isolation across a wide variety of funding organiza-
系统蒸发散. Unintended funding concentration will be particularly likely to occur when different
funding agencies operate with relatively uniform excellence criteria, and when they lack over-
sight of allocation decisions made elsewhere in the system. Both conditions appear to be wide-
spread in most funding systems.

换句话说, aggregated allocation patterns are shaped by multiple interconnected,
science-internal and science-external factors that produce intended as well as unintended
effects. The complex interplay between all these factors needs to be taken into consideration
when suggestions for adjustments to the overall system are discussed. Securing a well-
balanced and sustainable science system will not be possible before these broader consider-
ations are factored into the funding equation.

最终, striking the right balance between concentration and dispersal will require real-
world experimentation across different funding contexts and disciplines. Although such

Quantitative Science Studies

138

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

balances cannot be inferred directly from this literature, there are indications that most coun-
tries and most fields are in need of initiatives leading to less, not more, concentration.
Although policymakers obviously worry about spreading out the available funding too thinly,
and although some degree of selectivity certainly is justified due to differences in talent and
originality across populations of researchers, there are reasons to believe that most systems
currently have moved too far toward concentration—and that this may harm the progress of
科学. As made clear by historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science, scientific ad-
vancement is best promoted by ensuring competition between ideas, paradigms, 理论,
方法, and approaches. A prerequisite for advances is therefore systemic underpinning of
diversity, originality, and risk-taking. Dispersal of funding among more individuals and groups
is one way to secure this.

作者贡献

The article has been developed as a fully collaborative project with all three authors, Kaare
Aagaard (KA), Mathias W. Nielsen (MWN), and Alexander Kladakis (AK) contributing equally
to all tasks.

Kaare Aagaard: 概念化; 数据管理; 形式分析; 资金获取;
调查; 方法; 项目管理; 软件; 验证; 可视化;
Writing—original draft; Writing—review & 编辑. Mathias W. Nielsen: 概念化;
数据管理; 形式分析; 调查; 方法; 软件; 验证;
可视化; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & 编辑. Alexander Kladakis:
概念化; 数据管理; 形式分析; 调查; 方法; 软件;
验证; 可视化; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & 编辑.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors have no competing interests.

资金信息

The project has been funded by The Think Tank DEA.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Not applicable.

参考

Aagaard, K. (2017). The evolution of a national research funding

系统: Transformative change through layering and
displacement. Minerva, 55(3), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11024-017-9317-1

Alberts, 乙. 中号. (1985). Limits to growth: In biology, small science is
good science. 细胞, 41(2), 337–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0092-8674(85)80001-5

Alberts, 乙. (2012). The end of “small science”? 科学, 337(6102),

1583. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230529

Alberts, B., 克氏纳, 中号. W., Tilghman, S。, & Varmus, H. (2014).

Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 111(16), 5773–5777. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1404402111

Arora, A。, 大卫, 磷. A。, & Gambardella, A. (1998). Reputation and
competence in publicly funded science: Estimating the effects on

research group productivity. Annales d’Économie et de
Statistique, (49/50), 163. https://doi.org/10.2307/20076114

Asonuma, A。, & Urata, H. (2015). Academic funding and allocation
of research money. In Arimoto, A. 等人. (编辑。) The Changing
Academic Profession in Japan, PP. 57–77. 施普林格. https://土井.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-09468-7_4

伯格, J. (2010A). Another look at measuring the scientific output
and impact of NIGMS grants. NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog,
National Institute of General Medical Sciences. https://环形.
nigms.nih.gov/2010/11/another-look-at-measuring-the-scientific-
output-and-impact-of-nigms-grants/

伯格, J. (2010乙). Measuring the scientific output and impact of

NIGMS grants. NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog, National Institute
of General Medical Sciences. https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2010/
09/measuring-the-scientific-output-and-impact-of-nigms-
grants/

Quantitative Science Studies

139

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

伯格, J. 中号. (2012). Well-funded investigators should receive extra
审查. 自然, 489(7415), 203–203. https://doi.org/10.1038/
489203A

Bloch, C。, & Sorensen, 中号. 磷. (2015). The size of research funding:

Trends and implications. Science and Public Policy, 42(1),
30–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu019

Bloch, C。, 施耐德, J. W., & Sinkjær, 时间. (2016). 尺寸, 积累
and performance for research grants: Examining the role of size for
centres of excellence. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0147726. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147726

Bol, T。, de Vaan, M。, & van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew effect in

science funding. 美国国家科学院院刊
Sciences of the United States of America, 115(19), 4887–4890.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719557115

Bonaccorsi, A。, & Daraio, C. (2005). Exploring size and
agglomeration effects on public research productivity.
Scientometrics, 63(1), 87–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
005-0205-3

Breschi, S。, & Malerba, F. (2011). Assessing the scientific and

technological output of EU Framework Programmes: 证据
from the FP6 projects in the ICT field. Scientometrics, 88(1),
239–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0378-x

Cole, J. R。, & Cole, S. (1973). Social Stratification in Science. 芝加哥:

芝加哥大学出版社.

qualified researcher a baseline grant. Accountability in Research,
16(1), 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620802689821
Gordon, R。, & Poulin, 乙. J. (2009乙). 的确: Cost of the NSERC

science grant peer review system exceeds the cost of giving every
qualified researcher a baseline grant. Accountability in Research,
16(4), 232–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620903065590
Gök, A。, Rigby, J。, & Shapira, 磷. (2016). The impact of research

funding on scientific outputs: Evidence from six smaller
European countries. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 67(3), 715–730. https://doi.org/
10.1002/asi.23406

Heinze, 时间. (2008). How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A
comparison of funding schemes. Science and Public Policy,
35(5), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X317151

Hellström, T。, Jabrane, L。, & Brattström, 乙. (2017). Center of

excellence funding: Connecting organizational capacities and
epistemic effects. Research Evaluation, 27(2), 73–81. https://土井.
org/10.1093/reseval/rvx043

希克斯, D ., & Katz, J. S. (2011). Equity and excellence in research

资金. Minerva, 49, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/
43548599

Ida, T。, & Fukuzawa, 氮. (2013). Effects of large-scale research

funding programs: A Japanese case study. Scientometrics, 94(3),
1253–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0841-3

厨师, 我。, Grange, S。, & Eyre-Walker, A. (2015). Research groups: 如何

Ioannidis, J. 磷. A. (2011). More time for research: Fund people not

big should they be? 同行杂志, 3, e989. https://doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.989

Cyranoski, D ., 吉尔伯特, N。, Ledford, H。, Nayar, A。, & Yahia, 中号.

(2011). 教育: The PhD factory. 自然, 472(7343),
276–279. https://doi.org/10.1038/472276a

Danthi, 氮. S。, 吴, C. 奥。, DiMichele, D. M。, Hoots, 瓦. K., & 劳尔,

中号. S. (2015). Citation impact of NHLBI R01 grants funded
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as
Compared to R01 grants funded through a standard payline.
Circulation Research, 116(5), 784–788. https://doi.org/10.1161/
CIRCRESAHA.116.305894

多伊尔, J. M。, 奎因, K., Bodenstein, 是. A。, 吴, C. 奥。, Danthi, N。, &

劳尔, 中号. S. (2015). Association of percentile ranking with
citation impact and productivity in a large cohort of de novo
NIMH-funded R01 grants. Molecular Psychiatry, 20(9),
1030–1036. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.71

Fang, F. C。, & Casadevall, A. (2016). Research funding: The case for

a modified lottery. MBio, 7(2), e00422-16. https://doi.org/
10.1128/mBio.00422-16

Fedderke, J. W., & 戈德施密特, 中号. (2015). Does massive funding
support of researchers work?: Evaluating the impact of the South
African research chair funding initiative. Research Policy, 44(2),
467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2014.09.009

Fortin, J.-M。, & 柯里, D. J. (2013). Big science vs. little science:
How scientific impact scales with funding. PLoS ONE, 8(6),
e65263. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065263

Gallo, S. A。, Carpenter, A. S。, Irwin, D ., McPartland, C. D ., Travis,
J。, Reynders, S。, 等人. (2014). The validation of peer review
through research impact measures and the implications for
funding strategies. PLoS ONE, 9(9), e106474. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0106474

Gaughan, M。, & Bozeman, 乙. (2002). Using curriculum vitae to
compare some impacts of NSF research grants with research
center funding. Research Evaluation, 11(1), 17–26. https://土井.
org/10.3152/147154402781776952

Gordon, R。, & Poulin, 乙. J. (2009A). Cost of the NSERC science
grant peer review system exceeds the cost of giving every

项目. 自然, 477, 7366.

Johnston, 右. (1994). Effects of resource concentration on research
表现. Higher Education, 28(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF01383570

Johnston, R。, Grigg, L. & 柯里, J. (1995). Size versus Performance
in Research. Australian Universities’ Review, 60–64. https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=EJ523114

荣格, H。, Seo, 我。, Kim, J。, & Kim, B.-K. (2017). Factors affecting

government-funded research quality. Asian Journal of
Technology Innovation, 25(3), 447–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19761597.2018.1436411

Katz, Y。, & Matter, U. (2017). On the biomedical elite: 不等式
and stasis in scientific knowledge production. Available at SSRN:
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3000628

Kenna, R。, & Berche, 乙. (2011). Critical mass and the dependency

of research quality on group size. Scientometrics, 86(2),
527–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0282-9

Kimble, J。, Bement, 瓦. M。, 张, Q., 考克斯, 乙. L。, Drinkwater,

氮. R。, Gourse, 右. L. 等人. (2015). Strategies from UW-Madison for
rescuing biomedical research in the US. 亿生活, 4, e09305. https://
doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09305

Langfeldt, L。, Benner, M。, Sivertsen, G。, Kristiansen, 乙. H。, Aksnes,

D. W., Borlaug, S. 乙. 等人. (2015). Excellence and growth
dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect. 科学
and Public Policy, 42(5), 661–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/
scipol/scu083

Larivière, 五、, Macaluso, B., Archambault, É., & Gingras, 是. (2010).
Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds,
publications and citations. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 45–53.
https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210X492495

劳尔, 中号. S. (2014). Personal reflections on big science, small science,
or the right mix: 数字. Circulation Research, 114(7), 1080–1082.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303627

劳尔, 中号. S。, Danthi, 氮. S。, Kaltman, J。, & 吴, C. (2015).

Predicting productivity returns on investment. Circulation
研究, 117(3), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1161/
CIRCRESAHA.115.306830

Quantitative Science Studies

140

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

劳尔, 中号. S。, Roychowdhury, D ., Patel, K., Walsh, R。, & 皮尔逊, K.
(2017). Marginal returns and levels of research grant support
among scientists supported by the National Institutes Of Health.
BioRxiv, 142554. https://doi.org/10.1101/142554

Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P。, Dinges, M。, van der Meulen, B.,

Potì, B., Reale, E., 等人. (2007). Indicators for comparative
analysis of public project funding: Concepts, implementation
和评价. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 243–255. https://土井.
org/10.3152/095820207X260252

Lorsch, J. 右. (2015). Maximizing the return on taxpayers’ investments
in fundamental biomedical research. Molecular Biology of the Cell,
26(9), 1578–1582. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e14-06-1163

Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific

生产率. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences,
16, 317–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/24529203

Lowe, 我. (1991). Science policy for the future. 在R中. Haynes (埃德。),
High Tech: High Cost? (PP. 177–191). 悉尼: Pan Macmillan.
Ma, A。, Mondragón, 右. J。, & Latora, V. (2015). Anatomy of funded

research in science. 美国国家科学院院刊
科学, 112(48), 14760–14765. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1513651112

Merton, 右. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. 科学, 159,

56–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/1723414

Mongeon, P。, Brodeur, C。, Beaudry, C。, & Larivière, V. (2016).

Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal
returns. Research Evaluation, 25(4), rvw007. https://doi.org/
10.1093/reseval/rvw007

摩尔, S。, Neylon, C。, Eve, 中号. P。, O’Donnell, D. P。, & Pattinson, D.

(2017). “Excellence R Us”: University research and the
fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Communications, 3, 16105.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.105

Nag, S。, 哪个, H。, Buccola, S。, & Ervin, D. (2013). Productivity and

financial support in academic bioscience. 应用经济学, 45(19),
2817–2826. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2012.676737

页, S. 乙. (2014). Where diversity comes from and why it matters?
European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 267–279. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2016

Peifer, 中号. (2017). The argument for diversifying the NIH grant
portfolio. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 28(22), 2935–2940.
https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e17-07-0462

鲍威尔, K. (2015). The future of the postdoc. 自然, 520(7546),

144–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/520144a

Shibayama, S. (2011). Distribution of academic research funds: A
case of Japanese national research grant. Scientometrics, 88(1),
43–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0392-z

Sousa, 右. (2008). Research funding: Less should be more. 科学
(纽约, 纽约), 322(5906), 1324–1325. https://doi.org/10.
1126/science.322.5906.1324b

Spanos, 是. E., & Vonortas, 氮. S. (2012). Scale and performance in
publicly funded collaborative research and development. 右&D
管理, 42(5), 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9310.2012.00698.X

Vaesen, K., & Katzav, J. (2017). How much would each researcher

receive if competitive government research funding were
distributed equally among researchers? PLoS ONE, 12(9),
e0183967. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183967

von Tunzelmann, N。, Ranga, M。, 马丁, 乙. R。, & Geuna, A. (2003).
The Effects of Size on Research Performance: A SPRU Review.
(六月), 26.

王, J。, Veugelers, R。, & Stephan, 磷. (2017). Bias against novelty
in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators.
Research Policy, 46(8), 1416–1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RESPOL.2017.06.006

严, E., 吴, C。, & 歌曲, 中号. (2018). The funding factor: A cross-
disciplinary examination of the association between research
funding and citation impact. Scientometrics, 115(1), 369–384.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2583-8

Yegros-Yegros, A。, Rafols, 我。, & D’Este, 磷. (2015). Does

interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? 这
different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. 公共科学图书馆
ONE, 10(8), e0135095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0135095

Ziman, J. 中号. (1994). Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic
steady state. 剑桥: 剑桥大学出版社, 1994.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Quantitative Science Studies

141

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

APPENDIX

Web of Science:

Table A1. Search strings used in funding-focused searches in Web of Science and Scopus

TS=( “R01 grant*” 或者 “baseline grant*” 或者 “funding mechanism*” 或者 “Research fund*” 或者 “Science fund*” 或者 “funding instrument*”
或者” funding scheme*” 或者 “federal funding” 或者 “well-funded scien*” 或者 “well-funded research*” 或者 “well-funded investigat*” 或者
“grant portfolio*” 或者 “investment portfolio” 或者 “research grant*” 或者 “research investment*” 或者 “investment* in research” 或者
“science grant*”) AND TS=(“research productivity” 或者 “scientific productivity” 或者 “scientific performance” 或者 “研究
表现” 或者 “research impact” 或者 “technological performance” 或者 “grant size*” 或者 “scientific impact*” 或者 “citation impact”
或者 “scientific quality” 或者 “scholarly impact” 或者 “scientific output*” 或者 “critical mass” 或者 “centers of excellence” 或者 “centres of
excellence” 或者 “grant size*” 或者 “funding size*” 或者 “epistemic effect*” 或者 “research excellence” 或者 “scientific excellence” 或者
“distributional equit*” 或者 “allocation of funding” 或者 “distribution of funding” 或者 “research allocation*” 或者 “funding allocation*” 或者
“funding distribution*” 或者 “size of research funding” 或者 “concentrat*” OR diversity OR diversifying OR diversification* OR
dispersion OR dispersal OR “increasing marginal return*” 或者 “decreasing marginal return*” 或者 “大规模” 或者 “small-scale” 或者
“small science” 或者 “big science” 或者 “funding cap” 或者 “project size” 或者 “peer-review system” 或者 “strategic funding” 或者 “研究
议程” 或者 “ground-breaking research” 或者 “scientific breakthrough*” OR concentration*)

Timespan: no limitation

Index: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&人机交互, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ESCI.

Document types: 文章, 书, Book Chapter, Discussion or Letter.

语言: 英语

N publications retrieved: 1,158

Scopus:

TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “R01 grant*” 或者 “baseline grant*” 或者 “funding mechanism*” 或者 “Research fund*” 或者 “Science fund*” 或者

“funding instrument*” 或者 ” funding scheme*” 或者 “federal funding” 或者 “well-funded scien*” 或者 “well-funded research*” 或者
“well-funded investigat*” 或者 “grant portfolio*” 或者 “investment portfolio” 或者 “research grant*” 或者 “research investment*” 或者
“investment* in research” 或者 “science grant*” ) TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “research productivity” 或者 “scientific productivity” 或者 “scientific
表现” 或者 “research performance” 或者 “research impact” 或者 “technological performance” 或者 “grant size*” 或者 “scientific
impact*” 或者 “citation impact” 或者 “scientific quality” 或者 “scholarly impact” 或者 “scientific output*” 或者 “critical mass” 或者
“centers of excellence” 或者 “centres of excellence” 或者 “grant size*” 或者 “funding size*” 或者 “epistemic effect*” 或者 “研究
excellence” 或者 “scientific excellence” 或者 “distributional equit*” 或者 “allocation of funding” 或者 “distribution of funding” 或者
“research allocation*” 或者 “funding allocation*” 或者 “funding distribution*” 或者 “size of research funding” 或者 “concentrat*” 或者
diversity OR diversifying OR diversification* OR dispersion OR dispersal OR “increasing marginal return*” 或者 “decreasing marginal

return*” 或者 “大规模” 或者 “small-scale” 或者 “small science” 或者 “big science” 或者 “funding cap” 或者 “project size” 或者 “peer-
review system” 或者 “strategic funding” 或者 “research agenda” 或者 “ground-breaking research” 或者 “scientific breakthrough*” 或者
concentration* )

Timespan: no limitation

Document types: no limitation

语言: no limitation

N publications retrieved: 2,231

Quantitative Science Studies

142

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

Table A2. Search strings used in searches combining a focus on funding and group size in Web of Science and Scopus

Web of Science:

TS = (“funding structure*” 或者 “grant award*” 或者 “research council” 或者 “资助机构” 或者 “science agency” 或者 “centers of

excellence” 或者 “centres of excellence” 或者 “R01 grant*” 或者 “baseline grant*” 或者 “funding mechanism*” 或者 “Research fund*” 或者
“Science fund*” 或者 “funding instrument*” 或者 “funding scheme*” 或者 “federal funding” 或者 “well-funded scien*” 或者 “资金充足
research*” 或者 “well-funded investigat*” 或者 “grant portfolio*” 或者 “investment portfolio” 或者 “research grant*” 或者 “研究
investment*” 或者 “investment* in research” 或者 “science grant*”) AND TS = (“lab size*” 或者 “group size*” 或者 “big group*” 或者 “小的
group*” 或者 “team siz*” 或者 “big team*” 或者 “small team*”)

Timespan: no limitation

Index: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&人机交互, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ESCI.

Document types: 文章, 书, Book Chapter, Discussion or Letter.

语言: 英语

N publications retrieved: 52

Scopus:

TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “funding structure*” 或者 “grant award*” 或者 “research council” 或者 “资助机构” 或者 “science agency” 或者

“centers of excellence” 或者 “centres of excellence” 或者 “R01 grant*” 或者 “baseline grant*” 或者 “funding mechanism*” 或者 “研究
fund*” 或者 “Science fund*” 或者 “funding instrument*” 或者 “funding scheme*” 或者 “federal funding” 或者 “well-funded scien*” 或者
“well-funded research*” 或者 “well-funded investigat*” 或者 “grant portfolio*” 或者 “investment portfolio” 或者 “research grant*” 或者
“research investment*” 或者 “investment* in research” 或者 “science grant*” ) TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “lab size*” 或者 “group size*” 或者 “大的
group*” 或者 “small group*” 或者 “team siz*” 或者 “big team*” 或者 “small team*” )

Timespan: no limitation

Document types: no limitation

语言: no limitation

N publications retrieved: 126

Final Set of 92 Sources Included in the Review of Concentration and Dispersal of Research Funding

Adams, J。, & Gurney, K. (2010). Funding selectivity, concentration and excellence—how
good is the UK’s research? HEPI Publications—Higher Education Policy Institute
(十二月).

Alberts, 乙. 中号. (1985). Limits to growth: In biology, small science is good science. 细胞,

41(2), 337–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(85)80001-5

Alberts, 乙. (2012, 九月 28). The end of “small science”? 科学, 337(6102), 1583.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230529

Alberts, B., 克氏纳, 中号. W., Tilghman, S。, & Varmus, H. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical
research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
美利坚合众国, 111(16), 5773–5777. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1404402111

Quantitative Science Studies

143

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

Arora, A。, 大卫, 磷. A。, & Gambardella, A. (1998). Reputation and competence in publicly
funded science: Estimating the effects on research group productivity. In The Economics
and Econometrics of Innovation (PP. 141–176). Boston MA: 施普林格. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4757-3194-1_6

Asonuma, A。, & Urata, H. (2015). Academic funding and allocation of research money. 在
Arimoto, A. 等人. (编辑。) The Changing Academic Profession in Japan (PP. 57–77). https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09468-7_4

Basson, J。, Lorsch, J。, & Dorsey, 时间. (2016). Revisiting the dependence of scientific produc-
tivity and impact on funding level. NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog, National Institute of
General Medical Sciences. Retrieved June 18, 2018, from NIGMS Feedback Loop
Blog website: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2016/07/revisiting-the-dependence-of-scientific-
productivity-and-impact-on-funding-level/

Berezin, A. A。, & 猎人, G. (1994). Myth of competition and NSERC policy of selectivity
(Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) (Viewpoint) (Column). Free Online
Library. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Myth+of+competition+and+NSERC+policy+of+
%22selectivity.%22+(Natural…-a015349703

Berezin, A. A. (2001). Interdisciplinary science reviews: ISR. 跨学科科学评论,
26(2), 97–102. Retrieved from http://apps.webofknowledge.com.ez.statsbiblioteket.
dk:2048/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode= GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=
E4y7jq7i13qer9oN4I7&page=1&doc=1

伯格, J. (2010A). Another look at measuring the scientific output and impact of NIGMS
grants. NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog, National Institute of General Medical Sciences.
https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2010/11/another-look-at-measuring-the-scientific-output-
and-impact-of-nigms-grants/

伯格, J. (2010乙). Measuring the scientific output and impact of NIGMS grants. NIGMS
Feedback Loop Blog, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. https://环形.
nigms.nih.gov/2010/09/measuring-the-scientific-output-and-impact-of-nigms-grants/
伯格, J. 中号. (2012). Well-funded investigators should receive extra scrutiny. 自然,

489(7415), 203. https://doi.org/10.1038/489203a

Bloch, C。, & Sorensen, 中号. 磷. (2015). The size of research funding: Trends and implications.

Science and Public Policy, 42(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu019

Bloch, C. , 施耐德, J. W., & Sinkjær, 时间. (2016). 尺寸, accumulation and performance for
research grants: Examining the role of size for centres of excellence. PLoS ONE, 11(2),
e0147726. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147726

Bol, T。, de Vaan, M。, & van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
115(19), 4887–4890. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719557115

Bollen, J。, Crandall, D ., Junk, D ., Ding, Y。, & Börner, K. (2014). From funding agencies to
scientific agency. EMBO Reports, 15(2), 131–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/embr.
201338068

Bollen, J。, Crandall, D ., Junk, D ., Ding, Y。, & Börner, K. (2017). An efficient system to fund
科学: From proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions. Scientometrics, 110(1),
521–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3

Bonaccorsi, A。, & Daraio, C. (2005). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public
research productivity. Scientometrics, 63(1), 87–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
005-0205-3

Breschi, S。, & Malerba, F. (2011). Assessing the scientific and technological output of EU
Framework Programmes: Evidence from the FP6 projects in the ICT field. Scientometrics,
88(1), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0378-x

Quantitative Science Studies

144

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

Brint, S。, & Carr, C. 乙. (2017). The Scientific Research Output of U.S. 研究型大学,
1980–2010: Continuing Dispersion, Increasing Concentration, or Stable Inequality?
Minerva, 55(4), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9330-4

柯林斯, F. S. (2017, 可能 2). New NIH approach to grant funding aimed at optimizing stew-
ardship of taxpayer dollars. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/
statements/new-nih-approach-grant-funding-aimed-optimizing-stewardship-taxpayer-
美元

Danthi, 氮. S。, 吴, C. 奥。, DiMichele, D. M。, Hoots, 瓦. K., & 劳尔, 中号. S. (2015). 引文
impact of NHLBI R01 grants funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act as compared to R01 grants funded through a standard payline. Circulation Research,
116(5), 784–788. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.305894

Davidian, K., & Watts, 磷. (2013). Individual research grants versus centers of excellence:
Maximizing the benefits of research and innovation. New Space, 1(3), 136–142. https://
doi.org/10.1089/space.2013.0017

多伊尔, J. M。, 奎因, K., Bodenstein, 是. A。, 吴, C. 奥。, Danthi, N。, & 劳尔, 中号. S. (2015).
Association of percentile ranking with citation impact and productivity in a large cohort
of de novo NIMH-funded R01 grants. Molecular Psychiatry, 20(9), 1030–1036. https://
doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.71

Fang, F. C。, & Casadevall, A. (2016). Research funding: The case for a modified lottery.

MBio, 7(2), e00422-16. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00422-16

Farina, C。, & Gibbons, 中号. (1981A). The concentration of research funds: The case of the
Science Research Council. 右&D Management, 11(2), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9310.1981.tb00451.x

Farina, C。, & Gibbons, 中号. (1981乙). The impact of the science research council’s policy of
selectivity and concentration on average levels of research support: 1965–1974.
Research Policy, 10(3), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90038-右

Fedderke, J. W., & 戈德施密特, 中号. (2015). Does massive funding support of researchers
工作? Evaluating the impact of the South African research chair funding initiative.
Research Policy, 44(2), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2014.09.009

Feder, 时间. (2012). Canada’s researchers fret over shifts in funding landscape. Physics Today,

65(7), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1634

Fortin, J.-M。, & 柯里, D. J. (2013). Big science vs. little science: How scientific impact scales
with funding. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e65263. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065263
Franklin, J. J. (1988). Selectivity in Funding: Evaluation of Research in Australia.

Prometheus, 6(1), 34–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028808631838

Galis, Z. S。, Hoots, 瓦. K., Kiley, J. P。, & 劳尔, 中号. S. (2012). On the value of portfolio di-
versity in heart, lung, and blood research. Circulation Research, 111(7), 833–836. https://
doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.112.279596

Gallo, S. A。, Carpenter, A. S。, Irwin, D ., McPartland, C. D ., Travis, J。, Reynders, S。, 等人. (2014).
The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for
funding strategies. PLoS ONE, 9(9), e106474. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106474
Garner, H. R。, McIver, L. J。, & Waitzkin, 中号. 乙. (2013). Research funding: Same work, twice

the money? 自然, 493(7434), 599–601. https://doi.org/10.1038/493599a

Gaughan, M。, & Bozeman, 乙. (2002). Using curriculum vitae to compare some impacts of
NSF research grants with research center funding. Research Evaluation, 11(1), 17–26.
https://doi.org/10.3152/147154402781776952

Geard, N。, & 高贵, J. (2010). Modelling academic research funding as a resource alloca-
化问题. 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation. Retrieved from https://eprints.
soton.ac.uk/271374/

Quantitative Science Studies

145

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

Gordon, R。, & Poulin, 乙. J. (2009A). Cost of the NSERC science grant peer review system
exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant. Accountability in
研究, 16(1), 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620802689821

Gordon, R。, & Poulin, 乙. J. (2009乙). 的确: Cost of the NSERC science grant peer review sys-
tem exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant. Accountability in
研究, 16(4), 232–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620903065590

Gök, A。, Rigby, J。, & Shapira, 磷. (2016). The impact of research funding on scientific
outputs: Evidence from six smaller European countries. Journal of the Association
for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1002/
asi.23406

Hallonsten, 奥。, & Hugander, 氧. (2014). Supporting “future research leaders” in Sweden:
Institutional isomorphism and inadvertent funding agglomeration. Research Evaluation,
23(3), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu009

Harrison, 中号. (2009). The question of R & D specialisation: Perspectives and policy impli-
阳离子. In Pontikakis, D. Kriakou, D. & van Baval, 右. (编辑。) The Question of R&D
Specialisation: Perspectives and Policy Implications. https://doi.org/10.2791/1094

Heale, J.-P., 夏皮罗, D ., & Egri, C. 磷. (2004). The determinants of research output in aca-
demic biomedical laboratories. International Journal of Biotechnology, 6(2/3), 134.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2004.004807

Hellström, T。, & 雅各布, 中号. (2012). Revisiting “Weinberg’s Choice”: Classic tensions in the
concept of scientific merit. Minerva, 50, 381–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/43548590
Hellström, T。, Jabrane, L。, & Brattström, 乙. (2017). Center of excellence funding: Connecting
organizational capacities and epistemic effects. Research Evaluation, 27(2), 73–81.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx043

Hernandez-Villafuerte, K., Sussex, J。, 罗宾, E., 格思里, S。, & Wooding, S. (2017).
Economies of scale and scope in publicly funded biomedical and health research:
Evidence from the literature. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 3. https://土井.
org/10.1186/s12961-016-0167-3

希克斯, D ., & Katz, J. S. (2011). Equity and Excellence in Research Funding. Minerva, 49,

137–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/43548599

Hoare, A. G. (1995). Scale economies in academic excellence: An exploratory analysis of
the United Kingdom’s 1992 research selectivity exercise. Higher Education, 29(3),
241–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384492

黄, D. (2018). Optimal distribution of science funding. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics
and Its Applications, 502, 613–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PHYSA.2018.03.026
Ida, T。, & Fukuzawa, 氮. (2013). Effects of large-scale research funding programs: A Japanese
case study. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1253–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-
0841-3

Ioannidis, J. 磷. A. (2011). More time for research: Fund people not projects. 自然, 477,

7366.

Johnston, 右. (1994). Effects of resource concentration on research performance. Higher

教育, 28(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383570

Johnston, R。, Grigg, L。, & 柯里, J. (1995). Size versus performance in research. 澳大利亚

Universities’ Review, 60–64. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ523114

荣格, H。, Seo, 我。, Kim, J。, & Kim, B.-K. (2017). Factors affecting government-funded research
质量. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 25(3), 447–469. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19761597.2018.1436411

Kaiser, J. (2017). Data check: Critics challenge NIH finding that bigger labs aren’t necessarily better.
科学 (纽约, 纽约), 356(6342), 997. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.356.6342.997

Quantitative Science Studies

146

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

/

.

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

Katz, Y。, & Matter, U. (2017). On the biomedical elite: Inequality and stasis in scientific

knowledge production. Available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3000628

Kimble, J。, Bement, 瓦. M。, 张, Q., 考克斯, 乙. L。, Drinkwater, 氮. R。, Gourse, 右. L。, 等人.
(2015). Strategies from UW-Madison for rescuing biomedical research in the US. 亿生活,
4, e09305. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09305

Langfeldt, L。, Benner, M。, Sivertsen, G。, Kristiansen, 乙. H。, Aksnes, D. W., Borlaug, S. B.,
等人. (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew
影响. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 661–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu083
Larivière, 五、, Macaluso, B., Archambault, É., & Gingras, 是. (2010). Which scientific elites?
On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Research Evaluation,
19(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210X492495

劳尔, 中号. S. (2014). Personal reflections on big science, small science, or the right mix:
数字. Circulation Research, 114(7), 1080–1082. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.
114.303627

劳尔, 中号. (2017). Research commitment index: A new tool for describing grant support.

美国国立卫生研究院.

劳尔, 中号. S。, Danthi, 氮. S。, Kaltman, J。, & 吴, C. (2015). Predicting productivity returns on
投资. Circulation Research, 117(3), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.
115.306830

劳尔, 中号. S。, Roychowdhury, D ., Patel, K., Walsh, R。, & 皮尔逊, K. (2017). Marginal re-
turns and levels of research grant support among scientists supported by the National
Institutes Of Health. BioRxiv, 142554. https://doi.org/10.1101/142554

李, J。, Xie, Y。, 吴, D ., & 陈, 是. (2017). Underestimating or overestimating the distribution
inequality of research funding? The influence of funding sources and subdivision.
Scientometrics, 112(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2402-2

Lorsch, J. 右. (2015). Maximizing the return on taxpayers’ investments in fundamental bio-
medical research. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 26(9), 1578–1582. https://doi.org/
10.1091/mbc.e14-06-1163

Ma, A。, Mondragón, 右. J。, & Latora, V. (2015). Anatomy of funded research in science.
美国国家科学院院刊, 112(48), 14760–14765. https://土井.
org/10.1073/pnas.1513651112

Mandel, H. G. (1983). Funding more NIH research grants. 科学, 221(4608), 338–340.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1691716

Miklos, 安德鲁; Lorsch, J. (2017). Stable success rates and other funding trends in fiscal
年 2016. NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog. National Institute of General Medical
科学. https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2017/03/stable-success-rates-and-other-funding-
trends-in-fiscal-year-2016/

Mongeon, P。, Brodeur, C。, Beaudry, C。, & Larivière, V. (2016). Concentration of research
funding leads to decreasing marginal returns. Research Evaluation, 25(4), rvw007.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw007

穆雷, D. L。, 莫里斯, D ., Lavoie, C。, Leavitt, 磷. R。, MacIsaac, H。, Masson, 中号. 乙. J。, & Villard,
M.-A. (2016). Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small
Universities. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0155876. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155876
Musacchio, J. 中号. (1994). American science in crisis: The need to revise the NIH funding
政策. FASEB Journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology, 8(10), 679–683. https://doi.org/10.1096/FASEBJ.8.10.7832841
Nag, S。, 哪个, H。, Buccola, S。, & Ervin, D. (2013). Productivity and financial support in
academic bioscience. 应用经济学, 45(19), 2817–2826. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00036846.2012.676737

Quantitative Science Studies

147

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

/

e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

/

/

/

1
1
1
1
7
1
7
6
0
7
8
5
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
0
2
p
d

.

/

F

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

Peifer, 中号. (2017A). Cap NIH funding for individual Investigators to save the future of bio-
medical science. https://www.change.org/p/dr-collins-cap-nih-funding-for-individual-
investigators-to-save-the-future-of-biomedical-science

Peifer, 中号. (2017乙). The argument for diversifying the NIH grant portfolio. Molecular Biology

of the Cell, 28(22), 2935–2940. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e17-07-0462

Petsko, G. A. (2009). Big science, little science. EMBO Reports, 10(12), 1282–1282. https://

doi.org/10.1038/embor.2009.240

Poulin, 乙. J。, & Gordon, 右. (2001). How to organize science funding: The new Canadian
Institutes for Health Research, an opportunity to increase innovation. Canadian Public
Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 27(1), 95. https://doi.org/10.2307/3552376

Reneke, J. A。, & Wiecek, 中号. 中号. (2005). Research support decisions under conditions of
uncertainty and risk. Nonlinear Analysis: 理论, 方法 & 应用领域, 63(5–7),
e2021–e2031. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NA.2005.03.005

Rigby, J。, & Julian, K. (2013). Optimizing research impact by allocating funding to researcher
grant portfolio: Some evidence on a policy option (RIP). 14th International Society of
Scientometrics and Infometrics Conference (ISSI), 1357–1362.

Roorda, S. (2009). The real cost of the NSERC peer review is less than 5% of a proposed
baseline grant. Accountability in Research, 16(4), 229–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08989620903065475

Rosbash, 中号. (2016). Five suggestions for substantial NIH reforms. 亿生活, 5, e22471. https://

doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22471

Shibayama, S. (2011). Distribution of academic research funds: A case of Japanese na-
tional research grant. Scientometrics, 88(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
011-0392-z

Shimada, Y。, Tsukada, N。, & Suzuki, J. (2017). Promoting diversity in science in Japan
through mission-oriented research grants. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1415–1435. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2224-7

Sousa, 右. (2008). Research funding: Less should be more. 科学 (纽约, 纽约),

322(5906), 1324–1325. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.322.5906.1324b

Spanos, 是. E., & Vonortas, 氮. S. (2012). Scale and performance in publicly funded collab-
orative research and development. 右&D Management, 42(5), 494–513. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9310.2012.00698.x

Szell, M。, & Sinatra, 右. (2015). Research funding goes to rich clubs. 诉讼程序
美国国家科学院, 112(48), 14749–14750.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520118112