Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Commentary

Research funding goes to rich clubs

View ORCID ProfileMichael Szell and Roberta Sinatra
  1. Center for Complex Network Research, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS December 1, 2015 112 (48) 14749-14750; first published November 13, 2015; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520118112
Michael Szell
Center for Complex Network Research, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael Szell
  • For correspondence: m.szell@neu.edu
Roberta Sinatra
Center for Complex Network Research, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Science is an enterprise driven fundamentally by social relations and dynamics (1). Thanks to comprehensive bibliometric datasets on scientific production and the development of new tools in network science in the past decade, traces of these relations can now be analyzed in the form of citation and coauthorship networks, shedding light on the complex structure of scientific collaboration patterns (2, 3), on reputation effects (4), and even on the development of entire fields (5, 6). What about funding, however? How do the available funding options influence with whom we collaborate? Are there elite institutions that get more than others? Additionally, how is the funding landscape changing? In PNAS, Ma et al. (7) explore a dataset of 43,000 projects funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, a major government body of research funding in the United Kingdom, offering a unique perspective on these questions. In a longitudinal data analysis covering three decades, Ma et al. (7) shed light into the relations between funding landscapes and scientific collaborations. The study finds increasing inequality over time on two levels: First, an elite circle of academic institutions tends to overattract funding, and, second, the very same institutions prefer to collaborate with each other.

To quantify the elitism in academic collaborations, Ma et al. (7) make use of methods from network science that have become indispensable in the analysis of complex systems (8). Their main metric measures the so-called “rich club” phenomenon (9) which indicates the tendency of nodes with many connections to form a tightly interconnected community (Fig. 1). Because many natural systems exhibit rich clubs, such as the physical structure of the Internet (10), various social systems, or the neural connections of the brain (11), finding one in a collaboration network is not alarming, per se, if the consequences are understood. Being a member of a rich club, on the one hand, implies having easy access to the other elite members in the system; on the other hand, it can provide a strategic position of brokerage standing between nonelite members of different communities. Using an appropriate network measure, Ma et al. (7) indeed find increasing brokerage of top-funded universities in the United Kingdom over time, potentially boosting their power over controlling access to opportunities apart from being well-connected.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Schematic illustration of a rich club, adapted from Sporns (11). This network structure indicates the tendency of nodes with high centrality (yellow) to form a tightly interconnected community. Members of the rich club can act as brokers between nodes that belong to different communities (white). Rich clubs are found in diverse systems, including the network of scientific collaborations between academic institutions studied by Ma et al. (7). In this case, the rich club implies a close circle of elite institutions that have increased power to control the access to information or to funding opportunities.

Should we be worried about these developments? The answer is not yet clear, because elite institutions like Imperial College London not only attract more funding but also produce research with higher impact (7). It is clear, however, that the approach of Ma et al. (7) is an important step in our ability to inform policy makers competently on the consequences of their funding strategies. For example, in times of “Big Science” projects with highly focused investments, such as the European Commission’s €1-billion flagship program, failure can lead to a more abrupt loss of resources (12).

By bringing institutions into the spotlight, Ma et al. (7) complement our former understanding of collaboration patterns from mere coauthorship (2⇓⇓⇓–6). Especially nowadays, with the growing size and interdisciplinarity of research teams (13, 14), their approach advances the way toward a more comprehensive framework of success and of team formation in research. With scientists spending considerable time on grant applications (15), increased transparency and scrutiny of the structure of research funding certainly seems a reasonable path toward improving the scientific enterprise. Similar to the open access movement in research publishing, it might reduce unnecessary obstacles and wasteful spending, and it could help to identify and remove the bottlenecks that hinder the funneling of resources toward the scientific talents in most need of financial support.

The quantitative and systematic assessment of research funding is a highly novel approach that has recently brought to light worrisome phenomena in resource allocation with the potential to stifle important scientific developments. For example, evaluators in grant committees systematically give lower scores to proposals that are closer to their own areas of expertise and to those proposals that are too novel (16). On the positive side, better peer review scores in grant proposal evaluations are consistently associated with better research outcomes, demonstrating that, altogether, peer review indeed generates reliable information about the quality of applications that may not be available otherwise (17). In any case, continued large-scale analyses of the funding process will continue to allow us to uncover hidden biases and provide us with the tools for correcting them.

Mining datasets of funded research proposals is just one of the many essential steps toward this goal. To uncover the socioeconomic mechanisms behind knowledge production in science, we must connect the dots between several phenomena, from the mobility of scientists (18) to the spread of ideas (19). Also, what are the dynamics of success in science: How and why do we cite others? Are there regional, gender-based, or other biases that influence the way we hire faculty (20) or quantify impact, thereby distorting the fair allocation of funding? If the opening of new data sources and the data mining advances in the past decade are any indication, answers to these questions will soon arrive, to the significant betterment of science as a whole.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: m.szell{at}neu.edu.
  • Author contributions: M.S. and R.S. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • See companion article on page 14760.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Merton RK
    (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago)
    .
  2. ↵
    1. Newman ME
    (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(2):404–409
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Moody J
    (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am Sociol Rev 69(2):213–238
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Petersen AM, et al.
    (2014) Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(43):15316–15321
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Redner S
    (2005) Citation statistics from 110 years of physical review. Phys Today 58(6):49–54
    .
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Sinatra R, et al.
    (2015) A century of physics. Nat Phys 11(10):791–796
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Ma A,
    2. Mondragón RJ,
    3. Latora V
    (2015) Anatomy of funded research in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:14760–14765
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Boccaletti S,
    2. Latora V,
    3. Moreno Y,
    4. Chavez M,
    5. Hwang DU
    (2006) Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Phys Rep 424(4):175–308
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Colizza V,
    2. Flammini A,
    3. Serrano MA,
    4. Vespignani A
    (2006) Detecting rich-club ordering in complex networks. Nat Phys 2(2):110–115
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Zhou S,
    2. Mondragón RJ
    (2004) The rich-club phenomenon in the Internet topology. IEEE Commun Lett 8(3):180–182
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Sporns O
    (2013) Structure and function of complex brain networks. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 15(3):247–262
    .
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Theil S
    (2015) Why the Human Brain Project went wrong—and how to fix it. Scientific American, Available at www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-brain-project-went-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it. Accessed October 29, 2015
    .
  13. ↵
    1. Wuchty S,
    2. Jones BF,
    3. Uzzi B
    (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Börner K, et al.
    (2010) A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Sci Transl Med 2(49):49cm24
    .
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. von Hippel T,
    2. von Hippel C
    (2015) To apply or not to apply: A survey analysis of grant writing costs and benefits. PLoS One 10(3):e0118494
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Boudreau K,
    2. Guinan E,
    3. Lakhani K,
    4. Riedl C
    (2015) Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance and resource allocation in science. Social Science Research Network. Available at ssrn.com/abstract=2478627. Accessed October 29, 2015
    .
  17. ↵
    1. Li D,
    2. Agha L
    (2015) Research funding. Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science 348(6233):434–438
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Deville P, et al.
    (2014) Career on the move: geography, stratification, and scientific impact. Sci Rep 4(4770):4770
    .
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Kuhn T,
    2. Perc M,
    3. Helbing D
    (2014) Inheritance patterns in citation networks reveal scientific memes. Phys Rev X 4(4):041036-1-9
    .
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Clauset A,
    2. Arbesman S,
    3. Larremore DB
    (2015) Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Science Advances 1(1):e1400005-1-6
    .
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Research funding goes to rich clubs
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Research funding goes to rich clubs
Michael Szell, Roberta Sinatra
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2015, 112 (48) 14749-14750; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1520118112

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Research funding goes to rich clubs
Michael Szell, Roberta Sinatra
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2015, 112 (48) 14749-14750; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1520118112
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Physical Sciences
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Social Sciences
  • Social Sciences

See related content:

  • Anatomy of funded research in science
    - Oct 26, 2015
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 112 (48)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Venus flytrap captures a fly.
Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Horse fossil
Mounted horseback riding in ancient China
A study uncovers early evidence of equestrianism in ancient China.
Image credit: Jian Ma.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490