Early career researchers who narrowly miss out on funding should be encouraged to try again because their work is often cited more than those whose research is funded first time around, a major international study has recommended.

Investigating whether early failure in winning funding makes people try harder and go on to achieve more later down the line, a team from the Research on Research Institute (RoRI) examined data from more than 100,000 applications to 14 different funding programmes in four countries to consider the impact of an early career setback.

While there was little evidence to support the generalisation that what does not kill you makes you stronger, the analysis found those who narrowly missed out on funding (¡°near misses¡±) but applied again tended to gain?more citations than those who only just met the funding criteria (¡°near hits¡±).

That is likely to be caused by selection bias, because initially unfunded people are more likely to apply again if their research goes well and they achieve a higher citation impact in the meantime, says the , published on Figshare on 12 June.

51³Ô¹Ï

The analysis should, however, cause funders to reconsider whether they should create more opportunities for those who met the essential criteria but missed out on funding to reapply, according to the study, which suggests that those classed as ¡°near misses¡± or ¡°near hits¡± be entered into a random draw for funding.

Authors of highly ranked research proposals?that are not funded could also receive targeted feedback, mentorship or support for resubmitting applications, explained Vincent Traag, senior research fellow at RoRI and senior researcher at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

51³Ô¹Ï

¡°Funders often only say whether a proposal has been funded or not but they could do more to communicate how close people were and encourage high-ranked ¡®near misses¡¯ to strengthen their application and try again,¡± said Traag.

¡°For example, funders and research institutions could offer bridge funding and career support for talented but unlucky scientists to develop their ideas and set them up for future success,¡± he added.

The study also found evidence of the Matthew effect, in which researchers who win funding early in their career are more likely to get funded in the future. The effect, named after a passage in the Gospel of Matthew (¡°To those who have, more will be given¡±), was found to exist across all funders and countries, with early grant success being a strong predictor of winning funding later on.

The Mathew effect is mainly driven by previously funded researchers applying more often for further funding later in their career, rather than by reviewers favouring previously funded people, the study suggests.

51³Ô¹Ï

James Wilsdon, executive director of RoRI and professor of research policy at UCL, said the findings ¡°highlight the importance of carrying out data-informed metascience research to understand what¡¯s really happening in funding organisations and institutions around the world¡­.rather relying on gut instinct and aphorisms.¡±

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com