ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024
The costs of competition in distributing scarce research funds.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- How contemporary academic structures constrain scientific creativity and hold back early-career researchers.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- The scientific game : Strategic Behavior and Incentives in Science.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Theorizing competition: An interdisciplinary framework.Competition & change · 2025Article
- Provenance and Funding of Extremely Cited Biomedical Articles Published Between 2003 and 2024.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Registered report protocol: Factors associated with inter-rater agreement in grant peer review.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research funding systems fundamentally influence how science operates. This paper aims to analyze the allocation of competitive research funding from different perspectives: How reliable are decision processes for funding? What are the economic costs of competitive funding? How does competition for funds affect doing risky research? How do competitive funding environments affect scientists themselves, and which ethical issues must be considered? We attempt to identify gaps in our knowledge of research funding systems; we propose recommendations for policymakers and funding agencies, including empirical experiments of decision processes and the collection of data on these processes. With our recommendations, we hope to contribute to developing improved ways of organizing research funding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.