@ChrisWWheat I'm tempted to say "why not?", but I know there are good reasons why not. I still won't say "no" though. https://t.co/zTqNwxtRVH
RT @poccopen: @yellowshippo @tokurontinus 「グラント投入金額に対して成果量はスケールしない」という結果を示す論文があるようです。(カナダの予算配分機関・大学在籍研究者の一部を対象とした調査) https://t.co/L4AYZiPGb…
RT @poccopen: @yellowshippo @tokurontinus 「グラント投入金額に対して成果量はスケールしない」という結果を示す論文があるようです。(カナダの予算配分機関・大学在籍研究者の一部を対象とした調査) https://t.co/L4AYZiPGb…
@yellowshippo @tokurontinus 「グラント投入金額に対して成果量はスケールしない」という結果を示す論文があるようです。(カナダの予算配分機関・大学在籍研究者の一部を対象とした調査) https://t.co/L4AYZiPGbO (この論文では、成果の定量的指標としては、論文数、論文被引用数などが使われています)
RT @michael_nielsen: While on the mismeasurement of science, another blast from the past: https://t.co/15vTZBSbRE I expect some people's o…
Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding, 9 years old https://t.co/Y2d2vGPuBX
While on the mismeasurement of science, another blast from the past: https://t.co/15vTZBSbRE I expect some people's opinions on the use of citations as a measure would flip if it was changed to citation per dollar. https://t.co/og1d2p334N
@OsunaLuqueJ @ChemBioUSC @Pepman34 @XRBustelo @DianaMorantR @CienciaGob @ASEICAnews pues estos podrían ser algunos https://t.co/chZ7mx9sCL https://t.co/uEUglugj3e
Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding "We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more productive." https://t.co/jtlyd5hGlJ
@pmcharrison @nielschr_ “Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding.” : https://t.co/W739rxVvn4
I guess part of the answer is suggested in https://t.co/tokmA9wdux
@DrFionaIngleby This paper suggests more small grants are a good option: https://t.co/9kYaM361QE I also think quality screening followed by lottery could be useful. Having been involved in grant evaluations several times, I know from experience that the cu
RT @CarlosPeres_: A few large v many small grants? As I suspected, the per dollar impact is lower for large grant-holders https://t.co/aQ2…
I guess that's good news for Canada then 😂
RT @LeGalliard_Lab: Research impact per unit fund decreases with the amount of funding suggesting that big grants are not necessarily more…
RT @LeGalliard_Lab: Research impact per unit fund decreases with the amount of funding suggesting that big grants are not necessarily more…
RT @LeGalliard_Lab: Research impact per unit fund decreases with the amount of funding suggesting that big grants are not necessarily more…
RT @LeGalliard_Lab: Research impact per unit fund decreases with the amount of funding suggesting that big grants are not necessarily more…
RT @LeGalliard_Lab: Research impact per unit fund decreases with the amount of funding suggesting that big grants are not necessarily more…
RT @CarlosPeres_: A few large v many small grants? As I suspected, the per dollar impact is lower for large grant-holders https://t.co/aQ2…
Research impact per unit fund decreases with the amount of funding suggesting that big grants are not necessarily more efficient at producing largest impact research. Big grants are bad because they drain money out of many for the goods of few ! https://
RT @CarlosPeres_: A few large v many small grants? As I suspected, the per dollar impact is lower for large grant-holders https://t.co/aQ2…
RT @CarlosPeres_: A few large v many small grants? As I suspected, the per dollar impact is lower for large grant-holders https://t.co/aQ2…
RT @CarlosPeres_: A few large v many small grants? As I suspected, the per dollar impact is lower for large grant-holders https://t.co/aQ2…
Not sure about the impact metric they used - surely there is more to impact than the number of citations and peer reviewed papers? I do know that I and others (esp back at ECR stage) underestimate costs & work for free on many of the smaller grants
RT @CarlosPeres_: A few large v many small grants? As I suspected, the per dollar impact is lower for large grant-holders https://t.co/aQ2…
RT @CarlosPeres_: A few large v many small grants? As I suspected, the per dollar impact is lower for large grant-holders https://t.co/aQ2…
RT @dnepstad1: I suspect that same could be said for conservation programs.
I suspect that same could be said for conservation programs.
A few large v many small grants? As I suspected, the per dollar impact is lower for large grant-holders https://t.co/aQ2tpxulbM
@jakub_nowosad There's also long debate about the benefits of few large vs many small grants, e.g. https://t.co/itRMOetmL7
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @EduardoGJR @ChemBioUSC @XRBustelo A propósito de esto: Funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excell…
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @EduardoGJR @ChemBioUSC @XRBustelo A propósito de esto: Funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excell…
Lo leí en su momento y me pareció una propuesta muy digna de tener en cuenta
@EduardoGJR @ChemBioUSC @XRBustelo A propósito de esto: Funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more productive https://t.co/O8lfmOGgfa
RT @JanaSchmutzler: Implications: Funding focusing on "excellence" inferior to one focusing on ""diversity" https://t.co/6sTKvpTVvX. Distr…
Implications: Funding focusing on "excellence" inferior to one focusing on ""diversity" https://t.co/6sTKvpTVvX. Distributing funds at random is most efficient: https://t.co/MMYyvSiJYZ. Imagine such a world?
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @erreuvedos A propósito del debate sobre la "excelencia", este estudio sugiere q es mejor apostar x la "diversidad". M…
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @erreuvedos A propósito del debate sobre la "excelencia", este estudio sugiere q es mejor apostar x la "diversidad". M…
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @erreuvedos A propósito del debate sobre la "excelencia", este estudio sugiere q es mejor apostar x la "diversidad". M…
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @erreuvedos A propósito del debate sobre la "excelencia", este estudio sugiere q es mejor apostar x la "diversidad". M…
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @erreuvedos A propósito del debate sobre la "excelencia", este estudio sugiere q es mejor apostar x la "diversidad". M…
@erreuvedos A propósito del debate sobre la "excelencia", este estudio sugiere q es mejor apostar x la "diversidad". Más Ciencia es Mejor Ciencia. https://t.co/TNRU4OHjt3
@KozuchSebastian @awhspeed Another good paper which uses funding rates from Canada. https://t.co/n2eJGU2WXt
RT @tbmurphy: @BarryOSullivan This is another related paper. https://t.co/h0nQYOqZ2d
@BarryOSullivan This is another related paper. https://t.co/h0nQYOqZ2d
RT @ShmoF16: This one shows big grants are barely better than little grants. Similar conclusion on follow up grants having less bang for th…
This one shows big grants are barely better than little grants. Similar conclusion on follow up grants having less bang for the buck. https://t.co/dgm5X9erPm
@paulg Related to this is a study that found that the most efficient way to maximize funding impact is to allocate smaller amounts of funds to more individuals than large amounts to only a select few based on past success / qualifications. https://t.co/x1H
RT @RomainBrette: Les études dont il est question (les refs ont disparu): https://t.co/zRi2x7qIqo https://t.co/xNAykhSieH https://t.co/MjI4…
RT @RomainBrette: Les études dont il est question (les refs ont disparu): https://t.co/zRi2x7qIqo https://t.co/xNAykhSieH https://t.co/MjI4…
RT @RomainBrette: Les études dont il est question (les refs ont disparu): https://t.co/zRi2x7qIqo https://t.co/xNAykhSieH https://t.co/MjI4…
@RomainBrette Les sources citées ici : https://t.co/DMm8Zm1m6h
RT @RomainBrette: Les études dont il est question (les refs ont disparu): https://t.co/zRi2x7qIqo https://t.co/xNAykhSieH https://t.co/MjI4…
RT @RomainBrette: Les études dont il est question (les refs ont disparu): https://t.co/zRi2x7qIqo https://t.co/xNAykhSieH https://t.co/MjI4…
Les études dont il est question (les refs ont disparu): https://t.co/zRi2x7qIqo https://t.co/xNAykhSieH https://t.co/MjI45Uc396 https://t.co/RK9v8QhQWU https://t.co/5lKMJViUlo https://t.co/205JwKp5Wb
@philippefroguel @pierre_bat @HydrePrever @ggalvezbehar @mixlamalice @MonniauxD Comme quoi on peut être chercheur reconnu et pas foutu de faire une biblio. Comme je suis sympa: https://t.co/zRi2x7qIqo https://t.co/xNAykhSieH https://t.co/MjI45Uc396 https:/
RT @ICrevecoeur: @rogueESR #LPPR "We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than 'excellence', are likely to prove t…
@rogueESR #LPPR "We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than 'excellence', are likely to prove to be more productive" https://t.co/if0ekWJihr
RT @arunshroff: @juliagalef Related to this is a study that found that the most efficient way to maximize funding impact is to allocate sma…
@juliagalef Related to this is a study that found that the most efficient way to maximize funding impact is to allocate smaller amounts of funds to more individuals than large amounts to only a select few based on past success / qualifications. https://t
@stormkees "Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding. Impact per dollar was therefore lower for large grant-holders.".. "We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more produ
RT @ChemBioUSC: Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://…
RT @ChemBioUSC: Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://…
RT @ChemBioUSC: Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://…
RT @ChemBioUSC: Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://…
RT @ChemBioUSC: Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://…
RT @ChemBioUSC: Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://…
RT @ChemBioUSC: Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://…
What a bit true! Is this rewarded? Unfortunately the answer usted no
RT @ChemBioUSC: Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://…
RT @ChemBioUSC: Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://…
RT @ChemBioUSC: Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://…
Plus smaller groups are comparatively more productive and also spend their money more efficiently!. Win win win!! https://t.co/pjlAgFJupe https://t.co/D7wveHya9a https://t.co/fV487StnOR
@b_abk6 @FDeGeuser Bon, nous on est pas là pour réchauffer l'ambiance : "the impact of researchers who received increases in funding did not predictably increase. We conclude that scientific impact (as reflected by publications) is only weakly limited by
@spitta1969 @Apuntes_ Aporto a la discusión. Subsidios grandes vs chicos? Repartidos por impacto o al azar? https://t.co/kv0s5iRmKy
@bluesocks81 @sneville15 Not just a nice idea, evidence indicates it’s the better way to do things! https://t.co/xlBeZNzNYi
Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding #researchimpact https://t.co/c1H8aILlWs
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @Phil_Baty @timeshighered This paper is also consistent with the view that funding strategies that target diversity, r…
RT @RitaVassena: Good science is not the same as big science. Gotta love the underdogs. https://t.co/93jnBSXepQ
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @Phil_Baty @timeshighered This paper is also consistent with the view that funding strategies that target diversity, r…
Well, this will certainly open up the debate - or at least it should! “We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more productive.”
RT @RitaVassena: Good science is not the same as big science. Gotta love the underdogs. https://t.co/93jnBSXepQ
RT @RitaVassena: Good science is not the same as big science. Gotta love the underdogs. https://t.co/93jnBSXepQ
They suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more productive. Gotta love the underdogs
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @Phil_Baty @timeshighered This paper is also consistent with the view that funding strategies that target diversity, r…
RT @Javier_DiazNido: @Phil_Baty @timeshighered This paper is also consistent with the view that funding strategies that target diversity, r…
RT @RitaVassena: Good science is not the same as big science. Gotta love the underdogs. https://t.co/93jnBSXepQ
Good science is not the same as big science. Gotta love the underdogs. https://t.co/93jnBSXepQ
@Phil_Baty @timeshighered This paper is also consistent with the view that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, may be more productive to promote research. https://t.co/Dq8jQc5Dmv
RT @lorensipro: « We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more produc…
RT @lorensipro: « We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more produc…
RT @lorensipro: « We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more produc…
RT @lorensipro: « We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more produc…
RT @lorensipro: « We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more produc…