A concept for inferring ‘frontier research’ in grant proposals

Hörlesberger, Marianne; Roche, Ivana; Besagni, Dominique; Scherngell, Thomas; François, Claire; Cuxac, Pascal; Schiebel, Edgar; Zitt, Michel; Holste, Dirk

doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1008-6

Cited by 28 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although most of the research is concerned with collaboration, a portion of the literature has shown interest in individual level grants, particularly those offered through the European Research Council (see Cruz-Castro et al, 2016;Edler et al, 2014;Hörlesberger et al, 2013;König, 2016;Laudel & Gläser, 2014;Luukkonen, 2012Luukkonen, , 2014Nedeva, 2013;Neufeld et al, 2013;Thomas & Nedeva, 2012). These studies focus on how this funding instrument has affected research organizations and the governance of breakthrough research (Cruz-Castro et al, 2016;Edler et al, 2014;Laudel & Gläser, 2014;Luukkonen, 2014;Thomas & Nedeva, 2012), as well as what characterizes those that are awarded funding (Neufeld et al, 2013).…”

Section: Eu Fp Specific Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who gets Horizon 2020 research grants? Propensity to apply and probability to succeed in a two-step analysis

Enger

Castellacci

2016

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Eu Fp Specific Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who gets Horizon 2020 research grants? Propensity to apply and probability to succeed in a two-step analysis

Enger

Castellacci

2016

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The single study that is closest to what we will report in this paper is the recent one by Hörlesberger et al (2013). They correlated the funding results from 198 ERC proposals (of which 41 were funded) with five indicators of their own design, some of which rely on document clusters (i.e., topics) in the AIT model of science that was created from the PASCAL database:…”

Section: Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 96%

Toward predicting research proposal success

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation analysis and discourse analysis of 369 R01 NIH proposals are used to discover possible predictors of proposal success. We focused on two issues: the Matthew effect in science-Merton's claim that eminent scientists have an inherent advantage in the competition for funds-and quality of writing or clarity. Our results suggest that a clearly articulated proposal is more likely to be funded than a proposal with lower quality of discourse. We also find that proposal success is correlated with a high level of topical overlap between the proposal references and the applicant's prior publications. Implications associated with the analysis of proposal data are discussed.

show abstract

“…Independence is not the only relevant dimension. One may also think of 'originality', 'risk taking', or 'interdisciplinary' as important features of the research lines to be developed [22,27]. And the own research line should be promising and relevant, so probably within a research field that shows growth.…”

Section: Independencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sandström & Sandström [2] and Wang [28] are but two examples of methods for finding hot areas that are based on similarities between papers. This would lead to several other relevant new indicators, which we will not develop here, but briefly mention them as part of our wish list for better indicators [27,29,30]. Here we focus on our core independence indicators.…”

Section: Independencementioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring researcher independence using bibliometric data: A proposal for a new performance indicator

Besselaar

Sandström

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used at the individual level -as is exemplified by the popularity of the H-index and many other publication and citation based indicators used in evaluation. The issue isn't whether these indicators can be considered useful, as they do provide a description of a researcher's oeuvre. However, at the same time, they are not enough to assess the quality of a researcher and his/her oeuvre: Quality has more dimensions than productivity and impact alone. In this paper, we argue that independence is an equally important characteristic that however lacks validated indicators for measuring it at the individual level. We propose two indicators to measure different dimensions of independence: one assessing whether a researcher has developed an own collaboration network, and another assessing the level of thematic independence. We illustrate how these indicators distinguish between researchers that are equally productive and have similar impact. The independence indicator is a step forward in evaluating individual scholarly quality: in cases where citations and publications do not distinguish, the indicators for independence may do.

show abstract

A concept for inferring ‘frontier research’ in grant proposals

Cited by 28 publications

References 24 publications

Who gets Horizon 2020 research grants? Propensity to apply and probability to succeed in a two-step analysis

Who gets Horizon 2020 research grants? Propensity to apply and probability to succeed in a two-step analysis

Toward predicting research proposal success

Measuring researcher independence using bibliometric data: A proposal for a new performance indicator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About