• 中国科学学与科技政策研究会
  • 中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院
  • 清华大学科学技术与社会研究中心
ISSN 1003-2053 CN 11-1805/G3

科学学研究 ›› 2025, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (2): 337-347.

• 创新探索 • 上一篇    下一篇

高风险高回报项目资助有助于科研创新吗? ———基于科学大数据的文献耦合网络分析

李美玲1,王洋2,阿儒涵3,李铭禄4   

  1. 1. 西安交通大学
    2. 西安交通大学公共政策与管理学院
    3. 中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院
    4. 国家自然科学基金委员会计划局
  • 收稿日期:2023-09-18 修回日期:2023-11-01 出版日期:2025-02-15 发布日期:2025-02-15
  • 通讯作者: 阿儒涵
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金;国家自然科学基金;国家自然科学基金;中国科学院青年创新促进会项目

Does high-risk, high-reward funding contribute to novelty? --Bibliometric coupling network analysis based on scholarly big data

  • Received:2023-09-18 Revised:2023-11-01 Online:2025-02-15 Published:2025-02-15

摘要: 传统竞争性项目资助容易引发科学家规避风险、开展保守性研究的问题,引起了科学共同体的广泛关注。高风险高回报项目资助被认为是能够弥补传统竞争性项目资助缺陷的有效途径。此类项目重点资助具有较高风险的科学问题研究,产出具有突破性、变革性和创新性的成果。在当前我国基础研究原创性成果数量较少,颠覆性创新不足的现状下,通过实证分析的方法深入研究高风险高回报项目的资助效果对完善我国科研资助体系具有重要意义。本文以高风险高回报项目的典型代表—美国国立卫生研究院“新创新者项目”为研究对象,以美国国立卫生研究院传统竞争性项目R01项目为对照组,构建不同类型项目的资助效果分析框架。通过构建学术论文的文献耦合网络,利用复杂网络社团结构划分、知识图谱以及引文频次等指标,定量测度高风险高回报项目的创新性特征,并开展了科研人员个体属性的调节效应分析。分析结果显示:(1)高风险高回报项目更加鼓励科学家开展探索性研究,其资助产出的学术论文具有更高的创新性;(2)高风险高回报项目资助产出的学术论文具有更高的学术影响力;(3)科学家的个体属性显著调节了高风险高回报项目的资助效应:青年科学家和女性科学家会强化高风险高回报项目与其资助论文创新性的正向关系,而女性科学家会弱化高风险高回报项目与其资助论文学术影响力的正向关系。最后,本文基于上述研究结论提出了优化我国政府科研项目资助体系的政策建议。

Abstract: Conventional competitive funding program is prone to encourage scientists to avoid risks and engage in conservative research, which has attracted widespread attentions from the scientific community. Funding for high-risk, high-reward research is considered an effective way to address this issue. Such funding program deems to support research with high risks, aiming to produce breakthrough, transformative, and innovative results. Given that the original and disruptive research in basic science is limited in China, empirical analysis of the effects of high-risk, high-reward funding programs has substantial societal impacts. In this paper, we focus on the “New Innovator Award” from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and consider the conventional R01 project as a control group. By constructing a bibliometric coupling network of papers, we use community structures in network theory, knowledge graphs, and citations to quantify the effect of “high-risk, high-reward” projects. Moreover, we also analyze the moderating effects of individual characteristics. We find that: (1) “High-risk, high-reward” projects encourage scientists to engage in exploratory research, and papers funded by such projects have higher novelty. (2) Papers funded by “high-risk, high-reward” projects have higher citations. (3) Individual characteristics have significant moderating effects: age and gender strengthen the positive relationship between “high-risk, high-reward” projects and novelty, while female scientists weaken such positive relationship. This paper has policy implications for the government and funding agencies.