An Empirical Research On The Impact Of Science Funding Support On Research Output

With the rapid development of global technology,the competition of science and technology what our country will face has increased gradually.Our country keeps carrying forward the basic scientific research development planning,which is of great significance in promoting economic growth,improving social welfare and enhancing national competitiveness.Science funding is an important channel for basic scientific research,in order to speed up the rapid development of science and technology,and improve the researcher output,our country is increasing investment intensity in basic scientific research.Therefore,research for science funding incentive effect,which the academia pays close attention to,is still one of the research focuses.First,based on the micro level of analysis,the paper takes the 143 researchers in the field of "technological innovation" as the sample,and investigates the science funding incentive effect under the condition of randomized simulation experiment,i.e.,using the method of propensity score stratification,we compare the output differences of researchers between two states of "not being granted with science funding" and "being granted with science funding".The empirical results indicate that compared with the researchers that are not granted with the science funding,the researchers who are granted with the science funding generally have higher research output.In addition,researchers with the science funding support under higher probability usually have higher research output.However,compared with the researchers who are granted with the science funding supports under medium probability,researchers who are not granted with the science funding supports under the highest probability have higher research output.Moreover,the researchers who are not granted with the science funding supports under medium probability have higher research output than the researchers who are granted with the science funding supports under low probability.Secondly,the paper takes the 64 researchers in the management science department of National Science Funding committee as the sample,and contrasts research output before and after the change of science funding support intensity,and contrasts the 2008-2010 and 2012-2014 researchers in two periods of research output using the method of paired sample mean significant tests.The research results show that when the science funding support intensity improved,the research output has relatively significant increase in the number of fund's publications,however,the number of fund's publications that with high impact factor journals is lower;when the science funding support intensity improved,the research output has significantly lower with average cost of fund's publications,and average cost of fund's publications that with higher impact factor journals are also significantly reduced.The research conclusions have implications for the formulation and revolution of science funding support policy.Based on empirical research first conclusion,we think that in the process of scientific funding allocation,we can put the researchers' screening and reviewing process into two stages.At the first stage,we can hidden the applicants'information,then choose the researchers,whose application project content is great of innovation,at the second phase,we need combination of applicants' past research output performance to evaluate the applicant's outcomes if he can achieve expected results,then allocating the science funding;Based on empirical research second conclusion,with the increasing scientific research intensity,the researcher' research output are not corresponding to improve,we should not only focus on the number of research output,more attention should be paid to the scientific research output quality in the evaluation process of project;moreover,improvement in funding support coverage might have advantage in improving research output than improvement in funding support intensity.In the future study,we can choose other researchers outside the field of management as the research objects to further verify the conclusions.