The impact of winning funding on researcher productivity, results from a randomized trial

Abstract

Abstract The return on investment of funding science has rarely been accurately measured. Previous estimates of the benefits of funding have used observational studies, including regression discontinuity designs. In 2013, the Health Research Council of New Zealand began awarding funding using a modified lottery, with an initial peer review stage followed by funding at random for short-listed applicants. This allowed us to compare research outputs between those awarded funding or not using a randomized experimental study design. The analysis included eighty-eight researchers who were followed for an average of 3.8 years of follow-up. The rate ratios (and 95 per cent credible intervals (CI)) for funding were 0.95 (95 per cent CI 0.67 to 1.39) for publications and 1.06 (95 per cent CI 0.79 to 1.43) for citations, showing no clear impact of funding on research outputs. The wider use of funding lotteries could provide robust estimates of the benefits of research funding to better inform science policy.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.