On the public citation graph

How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183967
0 signed · 85 inferred · view as graph

Inferred edges come from two machine sources: sweeps of open repository metadata (mostly SSRN and Zenodo), and a bulk OpenAlex citation snapshot. Every row below is labelled with the one it came from. Neither is a complete citation index — absence here is not evidence of absence.

Is this your work? Sign in with ORCID and put your name on the claims that are yours.
Claim with ORCID
Reference health. See whether every reference in this work resolves to a known work and none has been retracted — and get a dated CiteStamped badge you can embed.
See reference health

What this work says

Outgoing claims: the papers this work cites, builds on, or argues with.

inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1002/embr.201338068openalex-snapshot
From funding agencies to scientific agency
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.052openalex-snapshot
Healing the NIH-Funded Biomedical Research Enterprise
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.03.003openalex-snapshot
The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.10.004openalex-snapshot
A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11129-1openalex-snapshot
Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.3.160openalex-snapshot
Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/477529aopenalex-snapshot
Fund people not projects
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/495314dopenalex-snapshot
Funding: Australia's grant system wastes time.
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19949openalex-snapshot
US law could increase postdoc pay — and shake up research system
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804538105openalex-snapshot
Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620802689821openalex-snapshot
Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv029openalex-snapshot
Determining effects of individual research grants on publication output and impact: The case of the Emmy Noether Programme (German Research Foundation)
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000470openalex-snapshot
Characteristics, Satisfaction, and Engagement of Part-Time Faculty at U.S. Medical Schools
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00422-16openalex-snapshot
Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004462openalex-snapshot
The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398501000309openalex-snapshot
Funding Science: The Real Defects of Peer Review and An Alternative To It
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1177/030631201031006002openalex-snapshot
The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.4929.1363openalex-snapshot
The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027openalex-snapshot
The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065263openalex-snapshot
Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding
inferredcites →https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963848.n192openalex-snapshot
National Center for Education Statistics

What points at this work

Incoming claims: where this work appears in other papers’ reference lists and arguments.

inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3667729openalex-extracted
Capabilities for Transdisciplinary Research. An Evaluation Framework and Lessons from the ESRC Nexus Network +
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1002/9781119852865.ch17openalex-snapshot
Educational Research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69580-3_9openalex-snapshot
Quality Criteria and Concentration of Research Funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-76066-2_3openalex-snapshot
From Hadronic Bubbles to Quantum Gravity: Chasing the Infinite with Antonio Aurilia
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09514-yopenalex-snapshot
New Arguments for a pure lottery in Research Funding: A Sketch for a Future Science Policy Without Time-Consuming Grant Competitions
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03546-9openalex-snapshot
The public relevance of philosophy
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-018-1297-5openalex-snapshot
Recommendations for Reviewers of Biomedical Imaging Grant Applications
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-018-0230-8openalex-snapshot
The division of cognitive labor: two missing dimensions of the debate
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.02130-8openalex-snapshot
Regimes of research and development funding in higher education
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2022.108713openalex-snapshot
Automated liquid-handling operations for robust, resilient, and efficient bio-based laboratory practices
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2023.109154openalex-snapshot
Practical considerations for the high-level automation of a biosciences research laboratory
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2020.100744openalex-snapshot
A manifesto for failure: Depersonalising, collectivising and embracing failure in research funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2026.101879openalex-snapshot
The concentration/dispersal debate: Swedish higher education institutions 2008–2020
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616669.004openalex-snapshot
‘When the Levee Breaks’: Academic Life on the Brink
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616669.012openalex-snapshot
Notes
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.49openalex-snapshot
Is Lottery a Better Way of Resource Distribution Than Baseline Funding?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02959-3openalex-snapshot
The case for lotteries as a tiebreaker of quality in research funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-65660-9openalex-snapshot
Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01286-3openalex-snapshot
Why many funding schemes harm rather than support research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401237121openalex-snapshot
Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2407644121openalex-snapshot
The costs of competition in distributing scarce research funds
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2017.0192openalex-snapshot
Multi-Omics Research Trends in Sepsis: A Bibliometric, Comparative Analysis Between the United States, the European Union 28 Member States, and China
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab038openalex-snapshot
Capabilities for transdisciplinary research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac007openalex-snapshot
Research calls, competition for funding and inefficiency
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae020openalex-snapshot
Improving the efficiency of research proposals evaluation: A two-stage procedure
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae025openalex-snapshot
Funding lotteries for research grant allocation: An extended taxonomy and evaluation of their fairness
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz034openalex-snapshot
Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer review for the funding of science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac074openalex-snapshot
Perspectives on the narrowing and clustering of research trajectories: an epistemic threat to medical progress?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae015openalex-snapshot
Key technology and development of industry–academia collaboration patents derived from the government subsidy program
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230448openalex-snapshot
Perspectives on scientific error
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.15818openalex-snapshot
FENS‐Kavli Network of Excellence: Postponed, non‐competitive peer review for research funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/imcb.12592openalex-snapshot
Effective or predatory funding? Evaluating the hidden costs of grant applications
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13497openalex-snapshot
Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00002openalex-snapshot
Concentration or dispersal of research funding?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/00380261231207196openalex-snapshot
Grieving academic grant rejections: Examining funding failure and experiences of loss
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918822744openalex-snapshot
Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/02611929211030417openalex-snapshot
Biomedical Research Must Change — But a Shift Toward Human-specific Research Methods Is Only Part of What Is Needed
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231191424openalex-snapshot
Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124082.1openalex-snapshot
‘Science by consensus’ impedes scientific creativity and progress: An alternative to funding biomedical research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124082.2openalex-snapshot
‘Science by consensus’ impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124082.3openalex-snapshot
‘Science by consensus’ impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.1openalex-snapshot
Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000065openalex-snapshot
Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217931openalex-snapshot
Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264070openalex-snapshot
How large of a grant size is appropriate? Evidence from the National Natural Science Foundation of China
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282320openalex-snapshot
Can’t We Do Better? A cost-benefit analysis of proposal writing in a competitive funding environment
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293310openalex-snapshot
Questionable research practices in competitive grant funding: A survey
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201949472openalex-snapshot
The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.17387/bullentsocmalta.2018.01openalex-snapshot
Assessing biotic diversity : the glorious past, present, and the uncertain future
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.1787/2ae8c0dc-enopenalex-snapshot
Effective operation of competitive research funding systems
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4892342openalex-snapshot
Efficiency and Equity in Repeated Entry Games
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6323919openalex-snapshot
Efficiency and Equity in an Experimental Repeated Entry Game
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2019-1-2-76-93openalex-snapshot
Publish and who should perish: you or science?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2020-0032openalex-snapshot
The Association between Researchers’ Conceptions of Research and Their Strategic Research Agendas
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3y7xwopenalex-snapshot
The Psychological Science Collective: A collaborative data collection network to improve the generalizability of psychological science
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/fxqr7openalex-snapshot
Diversity or Disparity? The Concentration of Funded Research Topics in the United Kingdom
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3171/2021.1.jns203824openalex-snapshot
Impact of international research fellows in neurosurgery: results from a single academic center
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.571777openalex-snapshot
Automation in the Life Science Research Laboratory
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020033openalex-snapshot
Experimenting with Grant Peer Review: A Mixed Methods Case Study of the Effects on Time Use and the Quality of Reviewing
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020018openalex-snapshot
Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science?
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.4000/questionsdecommunication.29994openalex-snapshot
Recherche et dogmatisme : de l’improductivité du productivisme
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.5204/thesis.eprints.242770openalex-snapshot
A little less heavy, or a little less hated? Exploring the consequences of a neuroinflammation model of obesity
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.7146/cfasr.v10i1.151272openalex-snapshot
Evaluation of Funding Practices at Östersjöstiftelsen
inferred← citeshttps://doi.org/10.7146/cfasr.v10i1.151274openalex-snapshot
Koncentration eller spredning? Fordeling af konkurrenceudsatte forskningsmidler på tværs af danske bevillingsorganer
Editorial review for independent work. ICSAC — the Institute for Complexity Science and Advanced Computing — runs a structured editorial panel for researchers publishing outside journals, and publishes on CiteStamp rails. Submission is free and goes through ORCID: icsacinstitute.org/submit.