Scientific research significantly contributes to knowledge-based societies, driving scientific and technological progress and impacting the broader economy and society. Grant competitions have become a crucial policy tool for allocating public research funding, aiming to incentivize idea generation and fund projects with the highest potential for scientific and societal returns. This study focuses on understanding whether research grants facilitate additional and accessible research outputs. Individual-level analyses are particularly important because most grants are awarded to individual researchers or small teams. However, estimating the effect of grants on research outputs presents challenges due to several factors: the need for data on all applicants (not just winners), detailed researcher information, the non-random selection of grant recipients, the possibility of researchers receiving multiple grants, and the difficulty in finding suitable measures for research output. Publications and citations are commonly used but provide an incomplete picture of research impact, dissemination, and contribution to public discourse. Furthermore, publication and citation patterns vary across fields, making analysis in mixed samples challenging. This study aims to quantify the impact of the Swiss National Science Foundation's (SNSF) project funding (PF) grants on individual researchers' scientific publications and their dissemination, leveraging detailed data on grants and awardees from 2005 to 2019. The study differentiates itself by focusing on the applicant pool (a more homogeneous group than comparing winners to non-applicants), accounting for individual characteristics, and using proposal evaluation scores to compare researchers with similarly rated proposals, thereby enabling a causal effect estimation. It also analyzes a long time period, accounting for the timing of grants and outcomes and potential learning effects from grant writing. The study goes beyond simple publication and citation counts, incorporating preprints (as a measure of rapid dissemination) and altmetrics (measuring attention and accessibility beyond academia). By analyzing outputs over several years post-funding, the study investigates the persistence of grant effects.

Prior research on the impact of competitive research funding on knowledge generation (often proxied by publications) has yielded mixed results at various levels: institutional, laboratory, and individual researcher. At the university level, studies have shown a positive relationship between funding and publications. At the laboratory level, findings are inconclusive, possibly due to heterogeneity in unobserved lab characteristics and the variety of funding sources. At the individual researcher level, studies have documented positive effects of funding on publication quantity, with some indicating impacts on quality (citations). Some studies find that the effect of funding can vary depending on factors such as researcher age and field. A study on Swiss researchers found that participation in funding competitions, even without winning, fosters collaborative research. However, it also noted a lower average number of citations per paper for grant winners compared to non-winners, potentially due to the complexity of interdisciplinary projects or alternative funding sources.

The study uses data provided by the SNSF, encompassing 20,476 research project grants submitted between 2005 and 2019. The study focused on researchers who applied at least once after 2010 to ensure minimum research activity. Researchers were matched to the Dimensions database to collect publication information. The final dataset contained 82,249 researcher-year observations on 8,793 researchers. The central focus is on the impact of competitive project funding on researchers’ subsequent research outputs, differentiating between Principal Investigators (PIs) and co-PIs. The study accounts for institutional funding and funding from other sources (like the European Research Council). The empirical analysis employs two main estimation strategies. First, longitudinal regression models (mixed effects models) are used to capture unobserved individual heterogeneity. Count data models (negative binomial) are used for count outcomes (number of peer-reviewed articles and preprints), while linear models are used for continuous outcomes (yearly citations per article, altmetric score, relative citation ratio (RCR), and field citation ratio (FCR)). Second, a non-parametric approach (nearest neighbor propensity score matching) is employed to address selection bias in grant awarding. Researchers are paired based on similarity in the probability of receiving a grant and the average score of their submitted applications, matching exactly on year and research field. The treatment effect is estimated as the mean difference in outcomes between the matched groups. The study also investigates the persistence of treatment effects over several years post-funding and explores heterogeneity in funding impact across the academic life cycle (using age as a proxy) and research fields.

The results show a consistent pattern across both parametric and non-parametric estimation methods, indicating a significant positive effect of SNSF funding on research outputs. The estimated treatment effect consistently shows that grant-winning researchers publish approximately one additional peer-reviewed publication per year for three years following the grant award. This increase in publication output is accompanied by higher citation counts, indicating that the funded research is not only more prolific but also of higher quality and relevance. The analysis of preprints shows a similar positive effect of funding, suggesting that the grant program promotes timely dissemination of research results. Altmetrics scores were also significantly higher for funded researchers, signifying greater attention and accessibility of their research beyond the academic community. Analyses of relative citation ratios (RCR) and field citation ratios (FCR) suggest that funded researchers’ work achieves comparable or slightly higher visibility within their respective fields of research. The study also found evidence of heterogeneity in the funding effects across different career stages and research fields. The impact of funding on publication output is particularly pronounced for younger and older researchers (those under 45 and over 65 years old), suggesting that funding helps to enhance early-career researchers' productivity and maintains productivity among senior researchers. The effect of funding on citation counts is more significant for researchers in social sciences and humanities (SSH). Findings suggest that funding may enhance research quality (as reflected by citations) more in SSH compared to STEM fields.

The findings demonstrate that SNSF project funding significantly increases both the quantity and quality of research outputs. The observed effects are robust across various estimation methods and account for potential confounding factors. The inclusion of preprints and altmetrics provides novel insights into the dissemination and broader impact of funded research. Heterogeneity in treatment effects across career stages and fields highlights the importance of considering such factors when designing research funding policies. The study's findings align with and strengthen previous research showing a positive impact of research funding on publication outcomes. The larger effects observed in this study compared to previous research are likely due to the study's comprehensive dataset, encompassing all SNSF project funding applicants and accounting for co-PIs, thus providing a more accurate estimate of the funding effects.

This study provides strong evidence that SNSF project funding substantially enhances research productivity, quality, and dissemination. The positive effects are persistent, extending over several years after the grant award. Funding's impact varies across career stages and research fields, suggesting that policies should consider researcher characteristics and field-specific needs. Future research could explore the role of funding amounts, research novelty, and other individual characteristics in determining the impact of research funding more fully. The inclusion of preprints and altmetrics offers a new perspective on evaluating research outcomes and should be further explored.

The study has some limitations. It does not consider industry funding, which may be relevant in certain fields. The repeated grant awards and the potential switching of researchers between treatment and control groups complicate the assessment of long-term impact. Time-varying unobserved factors might influence publication outcomes, and detailed information on research teams and individual responsibilities within projects is lacking. The use of preprints and altmetrics as outcome measures is novel and requires further research to be benchmarked against traditional metrics. Altmetrics may measure popularity rather than quality, and preprints and altmetrics might be susceptible to gaming. Finally, the study did not analyze the role of funding amounts or research novelty.