Меню
КартаВръзкиТемиБългарияНощта (K-TRIO)Мария Склодовска-КюриЗа ученициЗа учителиМетодологияИзненадай ме
HEИндивидуална стипендия2023–2025

KnowEvoIAndIdeasMkt · The Evolution of Knowledge in the Market for Ideas

„Хоризонт Европа“ — Действия „Мария Склодовска-Кюри“

Период
2023-03-01 → 2025-02-28
Финансиране от ЕС
203 891 €
Участници
2
Схема
HORIZON-TMA-MSCA-PF-GF

Линиите свързват координатора с партньорите.

Накратко на български

Механизмите на научните открития се анализират чрез сравнение между грантовете и наградите, както и влиянието на публикуването на негативни резултати. Това помага за създаването на по-ефективни политики за финансиране и разпространение на знанията.

Този кратък обзор е генериран от изкуствен интелект

Кратко обяснение, генерирано от езиков модел по текста на CORDIS. Оригиналът е по-долу.

Резултати накратко

The Evolution of Knowledge in the Market for Ideas

The Marie Curie Fellowship aims to address three critical issues in the scientific community: **1. Science Funding:** We construct a flexible model of science funding to evaluate potential policy shifts and their outcomes. The model will explore whether cooperation or competition among diverse researchers should be encouraged, and which provides larger incentives for novel solutions: grants (ex ante cost reductions) or prizes (ex post rewards). The model will also examine how these answers depend on the degree of competition. **2. Publishing Null Results:** We aim to quantify the influence of 'Null Results' on the path of knowledge evolution. It will derive a theory to predict how informative reported null results are in equilibrium and whether private knowledge of a null result can contribute to a researcher’s agenda, even if null results cannot be communicated. **3. Competition and Dynamics in the Market for Ideas:** We explore how competition among researchers can lead to both agglomeration of findings around a 'hot topic' and dispersion due to selecting uncontested niche fields. It will derive a theory to predict whether knowledge is obtained quicker through intense competition on narrow fields or by creating uncontested islands, and whether competition on originality should be incentivized to push the frontier or close known gaps in the literature. These objectives aim to provide valuable insights into the dynamics of scientific research and contribute to the development of effective policies for science funding and knowledge dissemination.

Текст от CORDIS, на английски · Данни: CORDIS, © Европейски съюз

Цел на проекта

The Evolution of Knowledge shapes our policy choices. Researchers decide what to research, with whom to collaborate, and how much to invest into discovery. While researchers enjoy institutionalized or implicit scientific freedom, two categories govern the researcher's decision which question to address and how much effort to exert: (i) prior knowledge and (ii) the market for ideas.Prior knowledge is vital to determine how knowledge evolves. Researchers stand on the shoulders of giants and use conjectures derived from previous discoveries when they address problems. They assess their ex ante prospects on finding an answer by looking at related findings. However, researchers also operate in the market for ideas. Careers depend on how marketable an idea is, how well researchers exploit synergies and complementarities with collaborators, what topics range high on the policy agenda, and what funding opportunities the researcher can access. In sum, how much effort the researcher invests depends crucially on the market for ideas.Our work combines these two aspects and proposes a flexible model to predict the researcher's choice and determine the evolution of knowledge over time. The model is set up with the data in mind to be able to derive meaningful counterfactuals. We can derive implications for designing the market for ideas, e.g., through adapting the funding architecture. We address questions such as: When should funding focus on cost reductions (e.g., grants), when on rewards (e.g., prizes)? When should we push for ""moonshot discoveries"" when for incremental research? Should researchers collaborate with experts on similar topics reducing coordination efforts, or with more distant ones exploiting complementarities? Should we let researchers compete on the same topic increasing the probability of finding a solution, or should we urge researchers to differentiate, increasing the number of questions covered?""

Оригинален текст от CORDIS (на английски).

Участници

Връзки

Данни: CORDIS, © Европейски съюз