Open Access
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 38, Number 1, Janvier 2022
Page(s) 84 - 88
Section Repères
Published online 21 January 2022
  1. Hubel DH. The Way Biomedical Research Is Organized Has Dramatically Changed Over the Past Half-Century : Are the Changes for the Better?. Neuron 2009 ; 64 : 161–163. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Monastersky R, van Noorden R. 150 years of Nature : a data graphic charts our evolution. Nature 2019 ; 575 : 22–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gomez Diaz M. Unintended effects of changes in NIH appropriations : Challenges for biomedical research workforce development. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. L’état de l’emploi scientifique en France-Édition 2020. Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation. [Google Scholar]
  5. Enders J, Musselin C. Back to the future? The academic professions in the 21st century. High Educ To 2008 ; 2030 : 125–150. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hodgkin A, Huxley A. Action Potentials Recorded from Inside a Nerve Fibre. Nature 1939 ; 144 : 710. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hodgkin AL, Katz B. The effect of sodium ions on the electrical activity of the giant axon of the squid. J Physiol 1949 ; 108 : 37. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kaiser D.. The search for clean cash. Nature 2011 ; 472 : 30–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ferlie E, Musselin C, Andresani G. The steering of higher education systems : a public management perspective. High Educ 2008 ; 56 : 325. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. La Hibou B.. bureaucratisation du monde à l’ère néolibérale. Paris: La Découverte, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gläser J, Laudel G. Governing Science : How Science Policy Shapes Research Content. Eur J Sociol Arch Eur Sociol 2016 ; 57 : 117–168. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Couzin J, Miller G. Boom and Bust. Science 2007 ; 316 : 356–361. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cook I, Grange S, Eyre-Walker A. Research groups : How big should they be? PeerJ 2015; 3. doi : 10.7717/peerj.989. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fortin JM, Currie DJ. Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding. PLoS ONE 2013 ; 8. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mongeon P, Brodeur C, Beaudry C, Lariviere V. Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal returns. Res Eval 2016; rvw007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wahls WP. The NIH must reduce disparities in funding to maximize its return on investments from taxpayers. eLife; 7. [Google Scholar]
  17. Rosser JB, Jr.. A Nobel Prize for Asymmetric Information : The economic contributions of George Akerlof, Michael Spence and Joseph Stiglitz. Rev Polit Econ 2003 ; 15 : 3–21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Engel P.. Les Vices du savoir : Essai d’éthique intellectuelle. Paris: Agone, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Csikszentmihalyi M.. Creativity : Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. 1st edition. New York: Harper Perennial, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  20. Box GEP. Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. In: Launer RL, Wilkinson GN, editors. Robustness in Statistics. Academic Press, 1979 ; pp. 201–236. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hollingsworth JR. Scientific Discoveries : An Institutionalist and Path-Dependent Perspective, 2008. In Caroline Hannaway, ed., Biomedicine in the Twentieth Century: Practices, Policies, and Politics. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2008 pp. 317–353. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bromham L, Dinnage R, Hua X. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 2016 ; 534 : 684–687. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Graves N, Barnett AG, Clarke P. Funding grant proposals for scientific research : retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ 2011 ; 343 : d4797. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fang FC, Bowen A, Casadevall A. NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. Elife 2016 ; 5 : e13323. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Scheiner SM, Bouchie LM. The predictive power of NSF reviewers and panels. Front Ecol Environ 2013 ; 11 : 406–407. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gross K, Bergstrom CT. Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions. PLOS Biol 2019 ; 17 : e3000065. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery. mBio 2016; 7. [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu M, Choy V, Clarke P, Barnett A, Blakely T, Pomeroy L. The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding : a survey of applicants. Res Integr Peer Rev 2020; 5 : 3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Haiech J, Jouault T. Think small! Science disruptive et petites équipes. Med Sci (Paris) 2020; 36 : 651–3. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.