The Impact of Grant Funding on the Publication Activity of Awarded Applicants: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies and Meta-analytical Estimates
Abstract
The connection between grant funding and research productivity has not been well established.\n\nObjectiveto examine the impact of grant funding on the publication activity of awarded applicants.\n\nMethodsa systematic review of results from comparative studies on the publication activity of applicants (awarded vs rejected) both prior to and after the award process. All pool estimates (weighted mean difference) were based on random-effects models.\n\nResultsrevealed 16 relevant publications (grant funding from 14 funds, 1980 to 2007 years), all with results from quasi-experimental studies. 45 paired values (ex ante - ex post) for the number of articles published by awarded and rejected applicants were used in the quantitative synthesis. The median average publication activity of awarded applicants before the award process was 2.4 (1.3; 3.4) and after the award process 3.1 (1.7; 4.3) publications per year, for rejected applicants was 1.8 (1.0; 2.9) and 2.4 (1.1; 3.8) respectively. The summation of the results from these studies using the difference-in-differences approach showed that awarded applicants published 0.14 articles per year (95% Cl 0.07 to 0.21) more than rejected applicants (adjusted for publication bias). A meta-regression analysis made it possible to tie together the revealed small difference with the difference-in-differences approach bias - the subsequent differences in the groups are determined by the scale of the initial differences in their publication activity.\n\nConclusionawarded applicants published slightly more often than their rejected opposites. However, this effect may be the result of a bias caused by the shortcomings of the difference-in-differences approach.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- High cost of bias: Diminishing marginal returns on NIH grant funding to institutions
Wayne P. Wahls·bioRxiv·Jul 13, 2018
- Retractions and rewards in science: An open question for reviewers and funders
M. D. Ribeiro, M. Kalichman, S. M. Vasconcelos·bioRxiv·May 31, 2022
- Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness
S. A. Gallo, K. B. Schmaling, … S. R. Glisson·bioRxiv·Nov 24, 2020
- Award or Reward? Which comes first, NIH funding or research impact?
Lucas C. Parra, Lukas Hirsch·bioRxiv·Sep 26, 2017
- Career incentives make Registered Reports unattractive under realistic academic conditions
Anne M. Scheel, Leonid Tiokhin, Daniël Lakens·bioRxiv·Jul 20, 2026
- Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey of the Biomedical Research Community
S. A. Gallo, L. A. Thompson, … S. R. Glisson·bioRxiv·Jun 4, 2019