Comparative Incentive Systems

Nobel laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine: relation between research funding and citations.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2907940/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

One of the vital problems in scientometrics is to explore the factors that affect the growth of citations in publications and in general the diffusion of knowledge in science and society. The goal of this study is to analyze the relation between funded and unfunded papers and citations of Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry and medicine over 2019-2020 period and the same relation in these research fields as a whole to clarify the scientific development. Original results here reveal that in chemistry and medicine, funded papers of Nobel Laureates have higher citations than unfunded papers, vice versa in physics that has high citations in unfunded papers. Instead, when overall research fields of physics, chemistry and medicine are analyzed, funded papers have a higher level of citations than unfunded, with a higher scaling factor in chemistry and medicine. General properties of this study are that: a) funded articles receive more citations than unfunded papers in research fields of physics, chemistry and medicine, generating a high Matthew effect given by a higher accumulation and growth of citations with the growth of papers, b) funding increases the citations of articles in fields oriented to applied research (such as, chemistry and medicine) more than fields oriented to basic research (physics). Overall, then, results here can explain some characteristics of scientific dynamics, showing the critical role of funding to foster citations and diffusion of knowledge, also having potential commercial implications in applied research. Results here can be provide useful information to understand drivers of the scientific development in basic and applied research fields to better allocate financial resources in research fields directed to support a positive scientific and societal impact.

Effects of strict containment policies on COVID-19 pandemic crisis: lessons to cope with next pandemic impacts

The goal of the study here is to analyze and assess whether strict containment policies to cope with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic crisis are effective interventions to reduce high numbers of infections and deaths. A homogenous sample of 31 countries is categorized in two sets: countries with high or low strictness of public policy to cope with COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The findings here suggest that countries with a low intensity of strictness have average confirmed cases and fatality rates related to COVID-19 lower than countries with high strictness in containment policies (confirmed cases are 24.69% vs. 26.06% and fatality rates are 74.33% vs. 76.38%, respectively, in countries with low and high strictness of COVID-19 public policies of containment). What this study adds is that high levels of strict restriction policies may not be useful measures of control in containing the spread and negative impact of pandemics similar to COVID-19 and additionally a high strictness in containment policies generates substantial social and economic costs. These findings can be explained with manifold socioeconomic and environmental factors that support transmission dynamics and circulation of COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, high levels of strictness in public policy (and also a high share of administering new vaccines) seem to have low effectiveness to stop pandemics similar to COVID-19 driven by mutant viral agents. These results here suggest that the design of effective health policies for prevention and preparedness of future pandemics should be underpinned in a good governance of countries and adoption of new technology, rather than strict and generalized health polices having ambiguous effects of containment in society.