Editing Funding of science (section)

=== Efficiency of funding ===
{{See also|Economics of science|Economics of scientific knowledge}}
The traditional measurement for efficiency of funding are [[Scientific literature|publication]] output, [[citation impact]], number of [[patent]]s, number of [[Doctor of Philosophy|PhDs]] awarded etc. However, the use of [[Impact factor|journal impact factor]] has generated a [[Publish or perish|publish-or-perish]] culture and a theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that [[peer review]] and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fang |first1=H. |year=2011 |title=Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly |journal=Scientometrics |volume=87 |issue=2 |pages=293–301 |doi=10.1007/s11192-010-0323-4 |s2cid=24236419}}</ref> Calls have been made to reform research assessment, most notably in the [[San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Read the Declaration |url=https://sfdora.org/read/ |access-date=2022-03-28 |website=DORA |language=en-US |archive-date=2022-03-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220330042049/https://sfdora.org/read/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and the [[Leiden Manifesto|Leiden Manifesto for research metrics]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hicks |first1=Diana |last2=Wouters |first2=Paul |last3=Waltman |first3=Ludo |last4=de Rijcke |first4=Sarah |last5=Rafols |first5=Ismael |date=2015-04-23 |title=Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=520 |issue=7548 |pages=429–431 |bibcode=2015Natur.520..429H |doi=10.1038/520429a |issn=0028-0836 |pmid=25903611 |s2cid=4462115|doi-access=free |hdl=10261/132304 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> The current system also has limitations to measure excellence in the Global South.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tijssen |first1=Robert |last2=Kraemer-Mbula |first2=Erika |date=2018-06-01 |title=Research excellence in Africa: Policies, perceptions, and performance |url=https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/45/3/392/4600842 |journal=Science and Public Policy |language=en |volume=45 |issue=3 |pages=392–403 |doi=10.1093/scipol/scx074 |issn=0302-3427 |doi-access=free |hdl=1887/65584 |hdl-access=free |archive-date=2023-04-30 |access-date=2022-04-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230430002914/https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/45/3/392/4600842 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Wallace |first1=L. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1156814189 |title=Transforming research excellence. |last2=Tijssen |first2=Robert |date=2019 |isbn=978-1-928502-07-4 |location=Cape Town |oclc=1156814189}}</ref> Novel measurement systems such as the Research Quality Plus has been put forward to better emphasize local knowledge and contextualization in the evaluation of excellence.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lebel |first1=Jean |last2=McLean |first2=Robert |date=July 2018 |title=A better measure of research from the global south |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=559 |issue=7712 |pages=23–26 |bibcode=2018Natur.559...23L |doi=10.1038/d41586-018-05581-4 |issn=0028-0836 |pmid=29973734 |s2cid=49692425|doi-access=free }}</ref> A wide range of interventions has been proposed to improve science funding.<ref name="a038">{{cite journal | last=Gigerenzer | first=Gerd | last2=Allen | first2=Colin | last3=Gaillard | first3=Stefan | last4=Goldstone | first4=Robert L. | last5=Haaf | first5=Julia | last6=Holmes | first6=William R. | last7=Kashima | first7=Yoshihisa | last8=Motz | first8=Benjamin | last9=Musslick | first9=Sebastian | last10=Stefan | first10=Angelika | title=Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research | journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | volume=122 | issue=5 | date=4 February 2025 | issn=0027-8424 | pmid=39869812 | pmc=11804678 | doi=10.1073/pnas.2401237121 | doi-access=free | page=}}</ref><ref name="b807">{{cite journal | last=Aczel | first=Balazs | last2=Barwich | first2=Ann-Sophie | last3=Diekman | first3=Amanda B. | last4=Fishbach | first4=Ayelet | last5=Goldstone | first5=Robert L. | last6=Gomez | first6=Pablo | last7=Gundersen | first7=Odd Erik | last8=von Hippel | first8=Paul T. | last9=Holcombe | first9=Alex O. | last10=Lewandowsky | first10=Stephan | last11=Nozari | first11=Nazbanou | last12=Pestilli | first12=Franco | last13=Ioannidis | first13=John P. A. | title=The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence | journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | volume=122 | issue=5 | date=4 February 2025 | issn=0027-8424 | pmid=39869808 | pmc=11804526 | doi=10.1073/pnas.2401232121 | doi-access=free | url=https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2401232121 | access-date=9 March 2025 | page=}}</ref> [[Open peer review]] can improve the quality of [[scholarly peer review]].<ref name="x870"/> A systematic review found a scarcity of [[randomized controlled trial]]s on [[peer review]] interventions.<ref name="x870">{{cite journal | last=Bruce | first=Rachel | last2=Chauvin | first2=Anthony | last3=Trinquart | first3=Ludovic | last4=Ravaud | first4=Philippe | last5=Boutron | first5=Isabelle | title=Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis | journal=BMC Medicine | volume=14 | issue=1 | date=2016 | issn=1741-7015 | pmid=27287500 | pmc=4902984 | doi=10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 | doi-access=free | page=}}</ref>

Another question is how to allocate funds to different disciplines, institutions, or researchers. A recent study by Wayne Walsh found that "prestigious institutions had on average 65% higher grant application success rates and 50% larger award sizes, whereas less-prestigious institutions produced 65% more publications and had a 35% higher citation impact per dollar of funding."<ref>{{cite web |title=Research Dollars Go Farther at Less-Prestigious Institutions: Study |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/research-dollars-go-farther-at-less-prestigious-institutions--study-64529 |access-date=2018-07-23 |website=The Scientist Magazine® |language=en |archive-date=2018-07-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180727163354/https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/research-dollars-go-farther-at-less-prestigious-institutions--study-64529 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wahls |first=Wayne P. |date=2018-07-13 |title=High cost of bias: Diminishing marginal returns on NIH grant funding to institutions |url=https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/13/367847 |journal=bioRxiv |language=en |page=367847 |doi=10.1101/367847 |doi-access=free |archive-date=2018-10-03 |access-date=2018-07-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181003235821/https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/13/367847 |url-status=live }}</ref>