@article{Thelwall2023,
title = {Is research funding always beneficial? A cross-disciplinary analysis of U.K. research 2014–20},
author = {Mike Thelwall and Kayvan Kousha and Mahshid Abdoli and Emma Stuart and Meiko Makita and Cristina I Font-Julian and Paul Wilson and Jonathan Levitt},
doi = {10.1162/qss_a_00254},
issn = {2641-3337},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-05-01},
urldate = {2023-05-01},
journal = {Quantitative Science Studies},
volume = {4},
number = {2},
pages = {501--534},
publisher = {MIT Press},
abstract = {Although funding is essential for some types of research and beneficial for others, it may constrain academic choice and creativity. Thus, it is important to check whether it ever seems unnecessary. Here we investigate whether funded U.K. research tends to be higher quality in all fields and for all major research funders. Based on peer review quality scores for 113,877 articles from all fields in the U.K.’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021, we estimate that there are substantial disciplinary differences in the proportion of funded journal articles, from Theology and Religious Studies (16%+) to Biological Sciences (91%+). The results suggest that funded research is likely to be of higher quality overall, for all the largest research funders, and for 30 out of 34 REF Units of Assessment (disciplines or sets of disciplines), even after factoring out research team size. There are differences between funders in the average quality of the research supported, however. Funding seems particularly associated with higher research quality in health-related fields. The results do not show cause and effect and do not take into account the amount of funding received but are consistent with funding either improving research quality or being won by high-quality researchers or projects.},
keywords = {Academic Careers, Research Funding, Research Grants, Research Quality, Scientometrics},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
