FUNPRODI-Sc

Whether in the humanities or in the natural sciences, research work revolves around three key stages: securing funding, implementing research efforts between different tracks, and disseminating knowledge. The objective of this project is to understand how institutional and competitive factors influence researchers' decisions at each of these stages, in order to shed light on ways to improve the design of the environment in which these choices are made. The project is structured into three parts, each corresponding to one of these stages. The tools used to address this theme are those of theoretical economics: dynamic game theory, two-sided markets, and innovation funding. In the first part of the project, we propose to examine the effectiveness of different funding schemes in the case of open calls for projects (where researchers choose their own topic) and in the case of closed calls (where they respond to a prescribed topic). The objective is to identify, for each of these two types of funding, the conditions under which they may lead to biases, such as overestimating expected results, choosing overly risky projects, or the gap between initial objectives and the outcomes achieved. We will then explore solutions to correct these biases. In the second part, the project aims to study, on the one hand, how researchers allocate their research efforts between more or less risky tracks based on their expectations of the intensity of competition, and on the other hand, to determine the role of transparency in scientific production in this choice. This stage is crucial for better understanding the strategic choices of researchers in the face of different types of uncertainty regarding competition, whether it is the presence of potential competitors or imperfect information about the results of these competitors. In the third part, we will focus on the dissemination of scientific advances through academic journals. In the particular context of the scientific publishing market, the transition to open access raises questions about the quality of publications. A remedy to counter publications of poor or even erroneous quality is to require the publication of codes and data. We aim to determine how journals can implement such a system. The researchers leading this project are experts in the economics of science and innovation. Some members of the consortium have already worked together, while others aim to create new synergies by utilizing the complementary skills of the different participants.