Matched observational study reveals higher long-term citations for grant-funded scientific publications, indicating competitive funding enhances research impact over time.
Policymakers are interested in assessing the effectiveness of the competitive grant funding model in producing impactful research. In the French context, we compare the impact of scientific articles supported by competitive grants with the impact of articles not supported by grants using a probabilistic matching procedure. We rely on publication acknowledgments to retrieve funding information and on citation data to assess the articles’ impact. We find that articles supported by competitive grants receive more citations than articles not supported by grants in the long run, while the difference is not significant in the short run. We find heterogeneity across fields.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michele Pezzoni (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: