1 Mautaur

Funding Sources For Scientific Research Paper

Email It!

It’s the big picture thinkers – the scientists and the academics, with out-of-this-world ideas and ground-breaking theories for change, who will pave the future. But developing and testing theories requires a lot of research, and with that research, comes huge investments. While research is an important part of academia, it can also be very costly. Fortunately, a whole slew of research grants, scholarships, and fellowships exist – all that’s left is to do the grant research.


  1. Grants.gov: Though backed by the Department of Health & Human Services, Grants.gov provides a valuable resource for searching for fellowships, grants, and other funding opportunities across multiple disciplines.
  2. Foundation Center: One of the largest databases of philanthropy in the United States contains information from more than 550 institutions eager to donate their money to creative, technical, medical, scientific, and plenty of other kinds of causes.
  3. Pivot: Pivot claims it hosts an estimated $44 billion worth of grants, fellowships, awards, and more, accessed by more than three million scholars worldwide.
  4. The Chronicle of Philanthropy New Grants: Another excellent search engine entirely dedicated to helping the most innovative thinkers obtain the money needed to move forward with their projects.
  5. Research Professional: Seven thousand opportunities await the driven at the well-loved Research Professional, which serves inclusively as a government-to-nonprofit grant database.
  6. Council on Foundations: Corporations, nonprofits, and other institutions gather here to talk best practices in philanthropy and where to find what for various projects.
  7. The Grantsmanship Center: Search for available research funding by state, see what givers prefer, and explore which ones offer up the most moolah.
  8. GrantSelect: Whether looking for money to advance an educational, nonprofit, artistic, or other worthwhile cause, GrantSelect makes it easy to find that funding.
  9. The Spencer Foundation: The Spencer Foundation provides research funding to outstanding proposals for intellectually rigorous education research.
  10. The Fulbright Program: The Fulbright Program offers grants in nearly 140 countries to further areas of education, culture, and science.
  11. Friends of the Princeton University Library: The Friends of the Princeton University Library offers short-term library research grants to promote scholarly use of the research collections.
  12. National Endowment for the Arts: The NEA’s Office of Research & Analysis will make awards to support research that investigates the value and/or impact of the arts, either as individual components within U.S. arts ecology or as they interact with each other and/or with other domains of American life.
  13. Amazon Web Services: AWS has two programs to enable customers to move their research or teaching endeavors to the cloud and innovate quickly and at lower cost: The AWS Cloud Credits for Research program (formerly AWS Research Grants) and AWS Educate – a global initiative to provide students and educators with the resources needed to greatly accelerate cloud-related learning endeavors and to help power the entrepreneurs, workforce, and researchers of tomorrow.
  14. The National Association of State Boards of Accountancy Research Grants: The NASBA will fund and award up to three grants totaling up to $25,000 for one-year research projects, intended for researchers at higher institutions.
  15. The Tinker Foundation Research Grants: The Tinker Foundation Field Research Grants Program is designed to provide budding scholars with first-hand experience of their region of study, regardless of academic discipline.
  16. SPIN (Sponsored Programs Information Network): SPIN is run by InfoEd International and requires an institutional subscription to access its global database for funding opportunities.
  17. GrantForward: GrantForward is a massive resource, full of grants from more than 9,000 sponsors in the United States. The site leverages data-crawling technology to constantly add new funding opportunities.
  18. Bush Foundation Fellowship Program: Leadership in its many forms are the main focus of the BFFP, who give money to folks dedicated to improving their communities.

Social and Civil

  1. National Endowment for Democracy: NGOs dedicated to furthering the cause of peace and democracy are the only ones eligible for grants from this organization.
  2. William T. Grant Foundation: Research and scholarship funding here goes towards advancing the cause of creating safe, healthy, and character-building environments for young people.
  3. Russell Sage Foundation: The Russell Sage Foundation focuses on best practices research feeding into equality and social justice initiatives.
  4. The Pew Charitable Trusts: Public policy is the name of the game here, where funding targets innovators looking to promote environmental, economic, and health programming causes reaching across demographics.
  5. The John Randolph Haynes Foundation: Based largely in Los Angeles, the John Randolph Haynes Foundation seeks to improve the city through a wide variety of altruistic projects.
  6. Economic and Social Research Council: This UK-based organization provides grants to researchers concerned with studying the social sciences in a manner that supports humanity’s progress.
  7. The American Political Science Association: Stop here for fellowships, grants, internships, visiting scholars programs, and other chances to pay for political research.
  8. Social Science Research Council: In the interest of furthering an awareness of integral political issues, the SSRC donates to a wide range of initiatives worldwide.
  9. Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy: Several grants go out each year through this organization, covering all the social sciences and judged based on how well they fit into policymaking.
  10. The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation: The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation welcomes proposals from any of the natural and social sciences and the humanities that promise to increase understanding of the causes, manifestations, and control of violence and aggression. Highest priority is given to research that can increase understanding and amelioration of urgent problems of violence and aggression in the modern world.
  11. The National Endowment for the Humanities: Research grants from TNEH support interpretive humanities research undertaken by a team of two or more scholars. Research must use the knowledge and perspectives of the humanities and historical or philosophical methods to enhance understanding of science, technology, medicine, and the social sciences.
  12. American Historical Association: The American Historical Association awards several research grants to AHA members with the aim of advancing the study and exploration of history in a diverse number of subject areas. All grants are offered annually and are intended to further research in progress. Preference is given to advanced doctoral students, nontenured faculty, and unaffiliated scholars. Grants may be used for travel to a library or archive, as well as microfilming, photography, or photo copying, paying borrowing or access fees, or similar research expenses.
  13. The Dirksen Congressional Center: The Dirksen Congressional Center offers individual grants of up to $3500 for individuals with a serious interest in studying Congress. The Center encourages graduate students who have successfully defended their dissertation prospectus to apply, and awards a significant portion of the funds toward dissertation research.
  14. The Independent Social Research Foundation: The ISRF supports independent-minded researchers pursuing original and interdisciplinary studies for solutions to social problems that are unlikely to be funded by existing funding bodies.
  15. The David & Lucile Packard Foundation: Nonprofit organizations dedicated to growing education, charities, health, and other social justice causes should consider seeing what funding is available to them through this foundation.
  16. Volkswagen Stiftung: Volkswagen devotes its grants and other funding opportunities to a diverse portfolio of charities and charity-minded individuals.

Science and Engineering

  1. National Science Foundation: For the love of science! Head here when searching for ways to pay for that gargantuan geology or bigtime biology project. Awards are used for everything from undergraduate research grants to small business programs.
  2. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation: Humboldt fellows embody the spirit of science and leadership alike, and the organization sponsors thinkers in Germany and abroad alike.
  3. National Academy of Engineering: All of the awards dished out by the NAE celebrate engineering advances, education, and media promotion.
  4. National Parks Foundation: Americans who want to preserve their country’s gorgeous parks and trails pitch projects to this governing body, concerned largely with ecology and accessibility issues.
  5. U.S. Department of Energy: Qualified individuals and institutions get money for bringing their energy-related ideas to life, though sustainability seems the most popular trend these days.
  6. American Physical Society: Future Feynmans in search of the sponsorship necessary to test their theories (and explore possible applications) might want to consider applying for the APS’ suite of awards.
  7. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation: Money is available here throughout the year, covering science and engineering as well as causes that overlap with civics, education, and economics.
  8. American Society for Engineering Education: The Department of Defense, NASA, The National Science Foundation, and other federal agencies sponsor high school and college students who show promise in the engineering sector.
  9. CRDF Global: Dedicated to peace and prosperity, recipients of CRDF Global grants apply their know-how to bettering social causes.
  10. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council: Students and professionals working in the physical sciences as they relate to engineering might find a few options to their liking here.
  11. The Whitehall Foundation: The Whitehall Foundation, through its program of grants and grants-in-aid, assists scholarly research in the life sciences. It is the Foundation’s policy to assist those dynamic areas of basic biological research that are not heavily supported by federal agencies or other foundations with specialized missions.
  12. Human Frontier Science Program: Research grants from the Human Frontier Science Program are provided for teams of scientists from different countries who wish to combine their expertise in innovative approaches to questions that could not be answered by individual laboratories.
  13. The U.S. Small Business Administration: The U.S. Small Business Administration offers research grants to small businesses that are engaged in scientific research and development projects that meet federal R&D objectives and have a high potential for commercialization.
  14. The Geological Society of America: The primary role of the GSA research grants program is to provide partial support of master’s and doctoral thesis research in the geological sciences for graduate students enrolled in universities in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central America.
  15. The Welch Foundation: The Welch Foundation provides grants for a minimum of $60,000 in funding to support research in chemistry by a full-time tenured or tenurehttps://leakeyfoundation.org/grants/research-grants/-track faculty member who serves as principal investigator. Applications are restricted to universities, colleges, and other educational institutions located within the state of Texas.
  16. The Leakey Foundation: The Leakey Foundation offers research grants of up to $25,000 to doctoral and postdoctoral students, as well as senior scientists, for research related specifically to human origins.
  17. American College of Sports Medicine: The American College of Sports Medicine offers several possible grants to research students in the areas of general and applied science.
  18. Association of American Geographers: The AAG provides small grants to support research and fieldwork. Grants can be used only for direct expenses of research; salary and overhead costs are not allowed.
  19. The Alternatives Research & Development Foundation: The Alternatives Research & Development Foundation is a U.S. leader in the funding and promotion of alternatives to the use of laboratory animals in research, testing, and education.
  20. BD Biosciences: BD Biosciences Research Grants aim to reward and enable important research by providing vital funding to scientists pursuing innovative experiments that advance the scientific understanding of disease. This ongoing program includes grants for immunology and stem cell research, totaling $240,000 annually in BD Biosciences research reagents.
  21. Sigma Xi: The Sigma Xi program awards grants for research in the areas of science, engineering, astronomy, and vision.
  22. The United Engineering Foundation: The United Engineering Foundation advances the engineering arts and sciences for the welfare of humanity. It supports engineering and education by, among other means, developing and offering grants.
  23. Wilson Ornithological Society Research Grants: The Wilson Ornithological Society Research Grants offer up to four grants of $1,500 dollars each for work in any area of ornithology.
  24. Newton’s List: Newton’s List is a free resource open to individuals searching for international funding for the natural sciences, engineering, technology, agriculture, and the social sciences.


  1. National Institutes of Health: Foreign and American medical professionals hoping to advance their research might want to consider one of these prestigious (and generous) endowments.
  2. Whitaker International Program: Biomedical engineering’s global reach serves as this organization’s focus, so applicants here need to open themselves up to international institutions and applications.
  3. U.S. National Library of Medicine: From tech to small businesses, the USNLM funding programs cover a diverse range of fields that feed into medicine.
  4. American Heart Association: Most of the AHA’s research involves cardiovascular disease and stroke, with funding in these areas available in both the winter and the summer.
  5. Society for Women’s Health Research: Female engineers and scientists are eligible for these grants, meant to support initiatives that improves women’s health and education on a global scale.
  6. Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation: Every cent donated to the DRCRF directly feeds into fellowships and awards bringing humanity closer to cancer cures and improved prevention regimens.
  7. Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Emerging scientists working in largely underrecognized and underfunded biomedical fields are the main recipients of this private foundation’s awards.
  8. The Foundation for Alcohol Research: As one can probably assume from the name, The Foundation for Alcohol Research contributes to projects studying how alcohol impacts human physical and mental health.
  9. Alex’s Lemonade Stand: These grants go towards doctors, nurses, and medical researchers concerned with curing childhood cancer.
  10. National Cancer Institute: Thanks to a little help from their friends in Congress, the National Cancer Institute have $4.9 billion to share with medical science researchers.
  11. Charles Stewart Mott Foundation: Michigan-based thinkers currently developing ways to improve upon serious local and state issues might want to consider checking out what this organization can offer in the way of funding for their ideas.
  12. American Federation for Aging Research: AFAR provides up to $100,000 for a one-to-two-year award to junior faculty (MDs and PhDs) to conduct research that will serve as the basis for longer term research efforts in the areas of biomedical and clinical research.
  13. The Muscular Dystrophy Association: The MDA is pursuing the full spectrum of research approaches that are geared toward combating neuromuscular diseases. MDA also helps spread this scientific knowledge and train the next generation of scientific leaders by funding national and international research conferences and career development grants.
  14. American Nurses Foundation: The ANF Nursing Research Grants Program provides funds to beginner and experienced nurse researchers to conduct studies that contribute toward the advancement of nursing science and the enhancement of patient care.
  15. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation: The CF Foundation offers competitive awards for research related to cystic fibrosis. Studies may be carried out at the subcellular, cellular, animal, or patient levels. Two of these funding mechanisms include pilot and feasibility awards and research grants.
  16. The National Ataxia Foundation: The National Ataxia Foundation (NAF) is committed to funding the best science relevant to hereditary and sporadic types of ataxia in both basic and translational research. NAF invites research applications from USA. and International non-profit and for-profit institutions.
  17. The March of Dimes: In keeping with its mission, the March of Dimes research portfolio funds many different areas of research on topics related to preventing birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality.
  18. The American Tinnitus Association: The American Tinnitus Association Research Grant Program financially supports scientific studies investigating tinnitus. Studies must be directly concerned with tinnitus and contribute to ATA’s goal of finding a cure.
  19. American Brain Tumor Association: The American Brain Tumor Association provides multiple grants for scientists doing research in or around the field of brain tumor research.
  20. American Cancer Society: The American Cancer Society also offers grants that support the clinical and/or research training of health professionals. These Health Professional Training Grants promote excellence in cancer prevention and control by providing incentive and support for highly qualified individuals in outstanding training programs.
  21. Thrasher Research Fund: The Thrasher Research Fund provides grants for pediatric medical research. The Fund seeks to foster an environment of creativity and discovery aimed at finding solutions to children’s health problems. The Fund awards grants for research that offer substantial promise for meaningful advances in prevention and treatment of children’s diseases, particularly research that offers broad-based applications.
  22. Foundation for Physical Therapy: The Foundation supports research projects in any patient care specialty.
  23. International OCD Foundation: The IOCDF awards grants to investigators whose research focuses on the nature, causes, and treatment of OCD and related disorders.
  24. Susan G. Komen: Susan G. Komen sustains a strong commitment to supporting research that will identify and deliver cures for breast cancer.
  25. American Association for Cancer Research: The AACR promotes and supports the highest quality cancer research. The AACR has been designated as an organization with an approved NCI peer review and funding system.
  26. American Thyroid Foundation: The ATA is committed to supporting research into better ways to diagnose and treat thyroid disease.
  27. The National Patient Safety Foundation: The National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) Research Grants Program seeks to stimulate new, innovative projects directed toward enhancing patient safety in the United States. The program’s objective is to promote studies leading to the prevention of human errors, system errors, patient injuries, and the consequences of such adverse events in a healthcare setting.
  28. The Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research: The FAER provides research grant funding for anesthesiologists and anesthesiology trainees to gain additional training in basic science, clinical and translational, health-services-related, and education research.
  29. The Alzheimer’s Association: The Alzheimer’s Association funds a wide variety of investigations by scientists at every stage of their careers. Each grant is designed to meet the needs of the field and to introduce fresh ideas in Alzheimer’s research.
  30. The Arthritis National Research Foundation: The Arthritis National Research Foundation seeks to move arthritis research forward to find new treatments and to cure arthritis.
  31. Hereditary Disease Foundation: The focus of the Hereditary Disease Foundation is on Huntington’s disease. Support will be for research projects that will contribute to identifying and understanding the basic defect in Huntington’s disease. Areas of interest include trinucleotide expansions, animal models, gene therapy, neurobiology and development of the basal ganglia, cell survival and death, and intercellular signaling in striatal neurons.
  32. The Children’s Leukemia Research Association: The objective of the CLRA is to direct the funds of the Association into the most promising leukemia research projects, where funding would not duplicate other funding sources.
  33. The American Parkinson Disease Association: The APDA offers grants of up to $50,000 for Parkinson disease research to scientists affiliated with U.S. research institutions.
  34. The Mary Kay Foundation: The Mary Kay Foundation offers grants to select doctors and medical scientists for research focusing on curing cancers that affect women. Details for 2017 are forthcoming.
  35. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America: The CCFA is a leading funder of basic and clinical research in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. CCFA supports research that increases understanding of the etiology, pathogenesis, therapy, and prevention of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.
  36. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons: ASES provides grants of up to $20,000 for promising shoulder and elbow research projects.
  37. The Avon Foundation for Women: Grants from the Avon Foundation go to develop new strategies to prevent breast cancer, and toward research of the science behind breast cancer to increase understanding of the disease.
  38. The International Research Grants Program: The IRGP seeks to promote research that will have a major impact in developing knowledge of Parkinson’s disease. An effort is made to promote projects that have little hope of securing traditional funding.
  39. American Gastroenterological Association: The AGA offers multiple grants for research advancing the science and practice of Gastroenterology.
  40. The Obesity Society: The Obesity Society offers grants of up to $25,000 dollars to members doing research in areas related to obesity.
  41. The Sjögren’s Syndrome Foundation: The SSF Research Grants Program places a high priority on both clinical and basic scientific research into the cause, prevention, detection, treatment, and cure of Sjögren’s.
  42. The Melanoma Research Foundation: The MRF Research Grant Program emphasizes both basic and clinical research projects that explore innovative approaches to understanding melanoma and its treatment.

Descriptive analysis

Before presenting results of the statistical analysis, we first examine the trends of some related indicators to provide a general picture. Fig 1 shows the average amount of NSERC funding granted to distinct individual researchers from 1996 to 2010. As indicated by the red dashed line in the figure average funding has followed an increasing trend during the examined time interval reaching from the level of $32,000 in the first considered year to around $49,000 in the final period.

Researchers publish their results in books and journal articles, and present them in scientific conferences in order to ensure priority for their discoveries and raise their scientific reputation. Number of publications has been widely used in the literature as a proxy for scientific output. Fig 2a depicts the average number of papers per researcher during the examined time interval. The trend can be divided into two parts as indicated by the vertical dashed line in the figure that are: decreasing trend from 1996 to 1999 and increasing trend afterwards. The slope of the increasing trend becomes steeper after 2003 and it continues till 2007 while after a sudden drop in 2008 it continues to augment with almost similar slope. Fig 2b shows the overall relation between the amount of average funding and the number of publications (in the absence of other factors). Intuitively it seems that there is a positive relation between funding and scientific output.

Apart from the rate of publications we have also analyzed the trend in their quality. As mentioned earlier, number of citations received by an article and the impact factor of the journal in which the article is published are the two most common measures for the quality of the paper. However, it is argued that journal impact factor cannot be considered as a good paper quality measure since it is highly discipline dependent and editorial policies can also affect the impact factor [39–40]. Number of citations has also some drawbacks (e.g. negative citations and self-citation) but citation based indicators are considered as the common practice in measuring the overall impact of an article [41]. We defined a three year time window for both funding and articles to calculate the average amount of citations. For example as it can be seen in Fig 3, for the funding year of 1996 we collected all the articles of the funded researchers for the period of 1996 to 1998. Then, we defined a three-year citation window for each of the publication years. In other words, we counted the citations for the period of 1996 to 1998 for the articles that were published in 1996, and from 1997 to 1999 for the articles published in 1997, and from 1998 to 2000 for the articles published in 1998. We followed the same procedure for the other funding years and in order to make a fair indicator we stopped at the funding year of 2008 since we had the publications for the period of 1996 to 2010 and the citations for the period of 1996 to 2012.

Fig 4a depicts the trend of 3-year average citation indicator over the period of 1996 to 2008. The overall trend follows an increasing polynomial curve of degree 4. As indicated by the dashed vertical lines, the trend can be divided into three regions. Except for the period of 2002 to 2005 for which we see an almost steady trend, in the other parts the average number of citations has increased. The slope is much steeper for the period of 1998 to 2002. Fig 4b shows the average citations received by the articles versus the average amount of funding allocated to the researchers labeled for different years. As it can be seen, it seems that no relation exists between funding and quality of the papers. Specifically for the period of 1996 to 2003 that is shaded in Fig 4b, although the annual average amounts of funding are comparable (see only a very slight increase in Fig 1) a considerable difference is seen in the amounts of citations. This preliminary result is quite in line with Fortin and Currie [42] who focused on three scientific disciplines and found a weak relation between the amount of NSERC funding allocated to an individual researcher and the output quality. Of course this is a preliminary observation at the aggregate level as we just focused on average annual funding and 3-year average number of citations. We will further investigate this issue by incorporating various variables of different types and performing statistical analysis at the individual level of researchers.

Analyzing the trend of network structure variables in a three-year time window at the aggregate level reveals that within the period of [2000–2002] till [2001–2003] all the examined network variables were relatively high (the shaded area in Fig 5). Hence, it seems that no relation exists between the network variables at the aggregate level and the amount of average funding as the trend of funding has been slightly increasing during the whole examined period (Fig 1). One reason for the drop in the values of the aggregate network variables in the recent years can be the increasing trend of involvement of new researches in the network. We will investigate the impact of network variables more accurately by calculating them at the individual level and assessing their effect statistically in section 3.2.

We also examined the interaction of the career age of scientists with the average amount of funding allocated to them. For this purpose, we searched over our publications database from 1992 to 2010 for each of the scientists in the database and set career age of a researcher to one on the date that he/she produced his/her first publication. Hence, for the period of 1992 to 2010 the career age ranges from 1 to 19. Having set the career age of the researchers, we focused on the range of 1996 to 2010 and compared the amount of funding allocated to the researchers of different career ages. According to Fig 6, it can be said that there is a positive relation between the career age of the researchers and the amount of funding that they have received until the career age of 15. However, some fluctuations are observed after the career age passes 15 reaching to a maximum at the age of 19. Hence, it seems that as researchers start their career the funding allocated to them is minimal at first, but continues to increase and reaches very high towards the end of their career. We will assess the impact of the career age of scientists on funding in the statistical analysis more accurately.

Statistical analysis

As explained in section 2.2. four network structure variables (i.e. betweenness centrality (bc), clustering coefficient (cc), eigenvector centrality (ec), and degree centrality (dc)) along with two measures for the quality of the papers (based on journal impact factor (avgIf) and citations counts (avgCit)), as well as the number of publications (noArt) and the career age of the researchers (carAge, control variable) are considered as the independent variables. As it was observed in Fig 6, it seems that the relation between the career age and funding is non-linear, hence, in order to see the curvature of the career age impact the quadratic term was also included in the model. We considered all the researchers who are affiliated with universities, research institutes, and industrial firms and perform multiple regression analysis at the individual level. Moreover, we filtered the data to include only the researchers for whom all the network structure variables could have been calculatedas some network structure variables are sparser at the individual level (e.g. betweenness centrality). The reason is that only a limited number of researchers has a control over the network, i.e. betweenness centrality higher than zero. However, on the other hand the degree centrality is greater than zero for all the non-isolated nodes. This filtration resulted in 72,267 records of funded researchers.

Before running the regression model, we first analyzed the associations between dependent and independent variables. According to Table 1, the absolute value of all the correlation coefficients is lower than 0.46, which indicates that the degree of linear correlation among the selected variables is weak. For most of the interactions the degree of linear correlation is significantly very weak.

The results of the multiple regression analysis are shown in Table 2. In the rest of this section we take each of the independent variables in turn and evaluate its effect on the amount of funding that researchers receive. According to the results, the rate and quality of the publications in the past three years have a positive impact on the amount of funding in the following year. Among them the number of publications has the highest impact while the effect of the average number of citations is the lowest. Hence, it can be said that researchers who are highly productive in terms of the quantity and quality of their papers receive on average higher amount of funding. It was argued in some studies (e.g. [24,43]) that higher amount of funding available will result in higher number of publications. Here we found that the other direction of the equation could be also true. This partially confirms the existence of the Matthew effect in the community of the NSERC funded researchers.

Interestingly, the impact of average journal factor is much higher than the impact of the average number of citations. A possible explanation may be related to the reputation of researchers possibly affecting their success in publishing in high impact factor journals as we expect that scientists who are well known and more recognized within their scientific community have on average higher chance of publishing articles in higher quality journals. Therefore, having high average of journal impact factors of the journals a researcher is publishing in can also partially reflect the likelihood of the researcher being more reputable. This is also partially confirmed by the positive impact of the career age on the amount of funding that will be discussed later. In addition, it is quite in line with Arora and Gambardella [15] who suggest that well-known highly reputable researchers with an established record of successes are more likely to receive higher amount of funding. On the other hand, the average number of citations mainly reflects the scientific value and the credibility of a researcher’s publications within his/her community. According to the results, although higher quality works may result in higher amount of funding, it seems that funding is more biased toward the reputation of a researcher rather than just the scientific impact of his/her publications.

Network structure variables reflect the impact of collaboration patterns and researchers’ position in the co-authorship network on the amount of funding that they receive. According to Table 2, betweenness centrality (bc) has a significant positive impact on the amount of funding. A researcher with high betweenness centrality is playing an important role in the network as he/she is positioned on a relatively high proportion of shortest paths between other researchers. Hence, researchers would have to go through the researcher with high betweenness centrality to reach other researchers/communities. Therefore, these highly central researchers can control the flow of knowledge and can influence the formation and evolution of scientific teams and research projects acting as gatekeepers. Based on these explanations, the positive relation between funding and betweenness centrality was quite expected.

Degree centrality can be regarded as a proxy for the size of scientific team of researchers in the co-authorship network. In other words, a researcher with high degree centrality has on average higher number of co-authors in comparison with the counterparts with lower degree centrality. Therefore, they may have better access to other researchers that might enable them to get involved in more projects. Moreover, a researcher with high degree centrality can also be regarded as a social researcher who is in contact with a relatively high number of other researchers that might enable him/her to be aware of resource transactions among other researchers, hence increasing the chance of being involved in new projects and/or securing new funding resources. In contrast, a peripheral researcher has on average few or even no relations, which lowers his/her chances to meet other potential researchers, get involved in high priority well-defined projects, and secure new funding resources. Another advantage of a social researcher over a peripheral one is the better access to the knowledge resources that might enable him/her to come up with a higher variety and more interesting research ideas. This might also help the researcher to secure a higher amount of research funding, since the quality of the proposals is supposed to be one of the main factors for the funding allocation. According to Table 2, our results also suggest a positive impact of the degree centrality on the amount of funding that researchers receive.

As it can be seen in Table 2, clustering coefficient (cc) has also a positive impact on funding. As mentioned earlier, clustering coefficient is a measure of the number of triangles (cliques) in a network, and is also called the cliquishness. In the co-authorship network, a researcher with high clustering coefficient has on average a more connected neighborhood. If his/her neighborhood is fully connected (i.e. there exists a connection between each pair of the researchers in the neighborhood) then his/her clustering coefficient would be one. As the number of connections in the neighborhood decreases the value of the cliquishness gets closer to zero. The positive relation between cliquishness and funding shows the importance of being involved in well-connected communities. Apart from confirming the important positive role of direct connections (degree centrality), this result also suggests that being a member of a better connected community increases the chance of securing more money. A researcher in a more connected community is more likely to be involved in more multidisciplinary research which requires active interactions among all members of the team. Hence, our results partially suggest that working in a multidisciplinary project can also increase the chance of getting more money for the research. The complex nature of modern science forces researchers to go beyond the restricted circle of their direct connections and get involved in more interdisciplinary research. This allows them not only to get access to novel skills and enrich their own expertise but also to the new financial resources.

Eigenvector centrality is a more global network analysis measure since it considers the overall structure of the network. Based on our results a negative relation is observed between the eigenvector centrality of the researchers and the amount of funding (Table 2). Observing a negative impact of the eigenvector centrality along with the positive effect of the other examined network structure variables that were already discussed may indicate the importance of the direct connections in securing more money. According to the results, being directly connected to many researchers and working in relatively bigger teams increases the probability of success in obtaining research grants. Also, researchers involved in tight communities within highly clustered neighborhoods will more likely be able to assure that the information is transmitted through them and that they can access all the knowledge available in the neighborhood. On the other hand, if one is not directly involved within any tightly knit community but instead is only connected to highly important researchers he/she may not necessarily have the greatest local influence and may be in fact quite peripheral. Also, such researcher may have a quite limited brokering potential and may not be able to reach the knowledge available in other communities. Hence, researchers with many contacts who are tightly embedded within the dense network of research partnerships are more likely to get higher amount of funding than those who only have a few connections to highly central contacts. It seems that having few important friends does not really help in securing more funding.

Another interesting point is the higher intensity of the network structure variables in comparison with the other independent variables (Table 2). This highlights a greater importance of social and professional connections (networking in general) in securing more funding in comparison with some scientific and performance related indicators like past productivity and quality of the publications. This can be also regarded as an indicator of the review bias in NSERC funding allocation system as researchers who are involved in particular social networks are more likely to secure more funding (special thanks to the anonymous reviewer for bringing up this point). Building an active and effective collaboration network is thus more important than producing papers!

Evaluating the effect of the career age of researchers reveals the positive relation between the age and the amount of funding (Table 2). In general, as the career age of the researchers grows they gain more reputation in the scientific community. In addition, as they move forward they acquire more experience in writing funding proposals and searching for new funding resources. Moreover, their collaboration network becomes more connected gradually. Hence, older scientists tend to receive higher amount of funding. The small positive coefficient of quadratic term of the career age variable also confirms this finding.

The analysis of the largest component dummy variable (dInLargest) reveals that being in the largest component of the co-authorship network can be advantageous for a researcher in securing higher amount of funding. It is quite expected since being in the largest component means that such researcher is a part of a connected network hence he/she can potentially get access to more researchers and it would be more likely for him/her to secure more sources of funding than a researcher outside the largest component. This might also provide him/her with more information about research projects, new financial sources, research ideas, etc.

We also evaluated the effect of the institution type of researchers measured by dAcademia dummy variable. Our results suggest that academic researchers are significantly different from the non-academic ones and are on average more likely to receive higher amount of funding. This finding was quite expected as the number of the industry-related programs is relatively limited in NSERC. In addition, industrial researchers might have access to other internal financial resources hence applying less for the federal funding.

We checked for the impact of being located in different Canadian provinces by including the provinces dummy variables in the model. For this purpose we omitted Ontario and defined dummy variables for the remaining nine Canadian provinces to compare their impact with Ontario. All the provinces dummy variables were significant at the level of 95% except for Alberta. Interestingly, researchers who are located in Quebec and British Columbia tend to receive more amount of funding in comparison with the researchers of Ontario. However, the other researchers who are located in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward, and Nova Scotia provinces are on average receiving lower amount of funding in comparison with their counterparts who are located in Ontario. This partially highlights the importance of the location factor in regard to the amount of funding that is allocated to the researchers. However, this is not surprising since most of the top ranking Canadian universities are located in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta.

Leave a Comment


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *