What Difference Does It Make? Impact Of Peer-reviewed Scholarships On Scientific Production

dc.creatorBin
dc.creatorAdriana; Salles-Filho
dc.creatorSergio; Capanema
dc.creatorLuiza Maria; Basile Colugnati
dc.creatorFernando Antonio
dc.date2015-FEB
dc.date2016-06-07T13:36:25Z
dc.date2016-06-07T13:36:25Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29T01:51:45Z
dc.date.available2018-03-29T01:51:45Z
dc.identifier
dc.identifierWhat Difference Does It Make? Impact Of Peer-reviewed Scholarships On Scientific Production. Springer, v. 102, p. 1167-1188 FEB-2015.
dc.identifier0138-9130
dc.identifierWOS:000348324000005
dc.identifier10.1007/s11192-014-1462-9
dc.identifierhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-014-1462-9
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/244300
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1307998
dc.descriptionFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
dc.descriptionWe investigated the extent to which different selection mechanisms for awarding scholarships varied in their short- and longer-term consequences in the performance of awardees in terms of scientific production. We conducted an impact evaluation study on undergraduate, master's, and PhD research scholarships and compared two different financial sources in Brazil: in one, the selection mechanism was based on a peer review system; the other was based on an institutional system other than peer review. Over 8,500 questionnaires were successfully completed, covering the period 1995-2009. The two groups were compared in terms of their scientific performance using a propensity score approach. We found that the peer-reviewed scholarship awardees showed better performance: they published more often and in journals with higher impact factors than scholarship awardees from the other group. However, two other results indicate a different situation. First, over the long-term, awardees under the peer review system continued to increase their publication rate and published in higher-quality journals; however, the differences with the control group tended to diminish after PhD graduation. Second, the better performance of peer-reviewed scholarships was not observed in all subject areas. The main policy implications of this study relate to a better understanding of selection mechanisms and the heterogeneity regarding the relation between selection processes and scientific and academic output.
dc.description102
dc.description2
dc.description
dc.description1167
dc.description1188
dc.descriptionFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
dc.descriptionFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
dc.descriptionFAPESP [2008/58628-7]
dc.description
dc.description
dc.description
dc.languageen
dc.publisherSPRINGER
dc.publisher
dc.publisherDORDRECHT
dc.relationSCIENTOMETRICS
dc.rightsfechado
dc.sourceWOS
dc.subjectKnowledge Economy
dc.subjectBasic Research
dc.subjectDoctorate
dc.subjectScience
dc.titleWhat Difference Does It Make? Impact Of Peer-reviewed Scholarships On Scientific Production
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución