ArticlePloS one2025
A mixed-methods evaluation of a Polish international researcher mobility grant scheme.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper examines the quantitative and qualitative effects of the first call of the Bekker Programme, funded by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange. The program supports the outgoing temporary international mobility of scholars. Its first call funded 152 scholars. The study employs a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative analysis using the interrupted time series method and qualitative analysis of final reports submitted by Bekker Programme beneficiaries. Quantitative data from the Web of Science database were analyzed to measure the number of papers published, the number of internationally co-authored works, and the number of citations for beneficiaries before and after the program's implementation. The quantitative findings did not show a statistically significant increase in the number of publications or citations attributable to the program. However, there was a significant positive impact on international collaboration, as evidenced by an increase in internationally co-authored publications. Qualitative analysis of the beneficiary final reports revealed a broader spectrum of impacts, including enhanced scientific competencies, experience of different organizational cultures, networking and collaboration. The contributions of this article to the literature are threefold. First, empirical findings on the impact of a mobility program from a scientific periphery are presented, highlighting its possible transformative benefits. Second, a mixed-methods approach is employed that captures both objective quantitative effects and subjective outcomes, thereby acknowledging the multidimensional impact of mobility grants and offering practical insights for policymakers. Third, an empirical analysis of the eightfold mobility impacts framework is provided through a bottom-up coding analysis of qualitative data, demonstrating the framework's applicability and robustness in a novel context.
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.