merged.bib

@article{azoulay2010,
  title = {Superstar {{Extinction}} {\textsuperscript{*}}},
  author = {Azoulay, Pierre and Zivin, Joshua S. Graff and Wang, Jialan},
  date = {2010-05},
  journaltitle = {Quarterly Journal of Economics},
  shortjournal = {Quarterly Journal of Economics},
  volume = {125},
  number = {2},
  pages = {549--589},
  issn = {0033-5533, 1531-4650},
  doi = {10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.549},
  url = {https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-lookup/doi/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.549},
  urldate = {2023-09-30},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\RHE8B4NZ\Azoulay et al. - 2010 - Superstar Extinction .pdf}
}

@article{bajgar2021,
  title = {Standardní granty GA ČR a publikační výkonnost vědců: Kontrafaktuální analýza projektů udělených v letech 2005–2014},
  author = {Bajgar, J},
  date = {2021},
  url = {https://idea.cerge-ei.cz/files/IDEA_Studie_9_2021_Granty_GACR/IDEA_Studie_9_2021_Granty_GACR.pdf},
  abstract = {The Czech Science Foundation (GAČR) is the largest source of project financing for scientists based in the Czech Republic. In recent years, GAČR has distributed grants worth over 4 billion CZK a year. About three quarters of the total funds are allocated to Standard grants.},
  langid = {czech}
}

@article{bloch2014,
  title = {Competitive {{Research Grants}} and {{Their Impact}} on {{Career Performance}}},
  author = {Bloch, Carter and Graversen, Ebbe Krogh and Pedersen, Heidi Skovgaard},
  date = {2014-03},
  journaltitle = {minerva: the international review of ancient art and archaeology (london)},
  shortjournal = {Minerva},
  volume = {52},
  number = {1},
  pages = {77--96},
  issn = {0026-4695, 1573-1871},
  doi = {10.1007/s11024-014-9247-0},
  url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11024-014-9247-0},
  urldate = {2023-09-29},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\SCPM2JSS\Bloch et al. - 2014 - Competitive Research Grants and Their Impact on Ca.pdf}
}

@article{christian2021,
  title = {A Survey of Early-Career Researchers in {{Australia}}},
  author = {Christian, Katherine and Johnstone, Carolyn and Larkins, Jo-ann and Wright, Wendy and Doran, Michael R},
  date = {2021-01-11},
  journaltitle = {eLife},
  volume = {10},
  pages = {e60613},
  issn = {2050-084X},
  doi = {10.7554/eLife.60613},
  url = {https://elifesciences.org/articles/60613},
  urldate = {2023-09-30},
  abstract = {Early-career researchers (ECRs) make up a large portion of the academic workforce and their experiences often reflect the wider culture of the research system. Here we surveyed 658 ECRs working in Australia to better understand the needs and challenges faced by this community. Although most respondents indicated a ‘love of science’, many also expressed an intention to leave their research position. The responses highlight how job insecurity, workplace culture, mentorship and ‘questionable research practices’ are impacting the job satisfaction of ECRs and potentially compromising science in Australia. We also make recommendations for addressing some of these concerns.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\KJ3H9GHJ\Christian et al. - 2021 - A survey of early-career researchers in Australia.pdf}
}

@misc{czechsciencefoundation2019,
  title = {Extract from the {{Tender Document}} for {{Public Tender}} in {{Research}}, {{Experimental Development}} and {{Innovation}} for the {{Support}} of {{Basic Research Grant Projects}}: {{Junior Grants}} 2020},
  author = {Czech Science Foundation},
  date = {2019},
  url = {https://gacr.cz/file-download/45297},
  organization = {{Czech Science Foundation}},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\SASEW2PS\Czech Science Foundation - 2019 - Extract from the Tender Document for Public Tender.pdf}
}

@article{danielsGenerationRiskYoung2015,
  title = {A Generation at Risk: {{Young}} Investigators and the Future of the Biomedical Workforce},
  shorttitle = {A Generation at Risk},
  author = {Daniels, Ronald J.},
  date = {2015-01-13},
  journaltitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  volume = {112},
  number = {2},
  pages = {313--318},
  publisher = {{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.1418761112},
  url = {https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418761112},
  urldate = {2023-07-25},
  abstract = {A number of distressing trends, including a decline in the share of key research grants going to younger scientists, as well as a steady rise in the age at which investigators receive their first funding, are now a decades-long feature of the US biomedical research workforce. Working committees have proposed recommendations, policy makers have implemented reforms, and yet the trajectory of our funding regime away from young scientists has only worsened. An investigation of some of the major factors and their geneses at play in explaining the increasing average age to first RO1 is presented. Recommendations related to funding, peer review, career paths, and the university–government partnership are provided.},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\7HKK4QGJ\Daniels - 2015 - A generation at risk Young investigators and the .pdf}
}

@article{dewinde2021,
  title = {Towards Inclusive Funding Practices for Early Career Researchers},
  author = {family=Winde, given=CharlotteM., given-i={{CharlotteM}}, prefix=de, useprefix=true and Sarabipour, Sarvenaz and Carignano, Hugo and Davla, Sejal and Eccles, David and Hainer, Sarah J. and Haidar, Mansour and Ilangovan, Vinodh and Jadavji, Nafisa M. and Kritsiligkou, Paraskevi and Lee, Tai-Ying and Ólafsdóttir, H. Freyja},
  date = {2021-03-24},
  journaltitle = {Journal of Science Policy \& Governance},
  shortjournal = {JSPG},
  volume = {18},
  number = {01},
  issn = {2372-2193},
  doi = {10.38126/JSPG180105},
  url = {https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/article_1038126_jspg180105},
  urldate = {2022-07-22},
  abstract = {Securing research funding is a challenge faced by most scientists in academic institutions worldwide. Funding success rates for all career stages are low, but the burden falls most heavily on early career researchers (ECRs). These are young investigators in training and new principal investigators who have a shorter track record. ECRs are dependent on funding to establish their academic careers. The low number of career development awards and the lack of sustained research funding result in the loss of ECR talent in academia. Several steps in the current funding process, from grant conditions to review, play significant roles in the distribution of funds. Furthermore, there is an imbalance where certain research disciplines and labs of influential researchers receive more funding. As a group of ECRs with global representation, we examined funding practices, barriers, and facilitators to the current funding systems. We also identified alternatives to the most common funding distribution practices, such as diversifying risk or awarding grants on a partly random basis. Here, we detail recommendations for funding agencies and grant reviewers to improve ECR funding prospects worldwide and promote a fairer and more inclusive funding landscape for ECRs.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\2NTQGNVH\dewinde_et_al_v18.1.pdf}
}

@article{dewinde2021,
  title = {Towards Inclusive Funding Practices for Early Career Researchers},
  author = {family=Winde, given=CharlotteM., given-i={{CharlotteM}}, prefix=de, useprefix=true and Sarabipour, Sarvenaz and Carignano, Hugo and Davla, Sejal and Eccles, David and Hainer, Sarah J. and Haidar, Mansour and Ilangovan, Vinodh and Jadavji, Nafisa M. and Kritsiligkou, Paraskevi and Lee, Tai-Ying and Ólafsdóttir, H. Freyja},
  date = {2021-03-24},
  journaltitle = {Journal of Science Policy \& Governance},
  shortjournal = {JSPG},
  volume = {18},
  number = {01},
  issn = {2372-2193},
  doi = {10.38126/JSPG180105},
  url = {https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/article_1038126_jspg180105},
  urldate = {2022-07-22},
  abstract = {Securing research funding is a challenge faced by most scientists in academic institutions worldwide. Funding success rates for all career stages are low, but the burden falls most heavily on early career researchers (ECRs). These are young investigators in training and new principal investigators who have a shorter track record. ECRs are dependent on funding to establish their academic careers. The low number of career development awards and the lack of sustained research funding result in the loss of ECR talent in academia. Several steps in the current funding process, from grant conditions to review, play significant roles in the distribution of funds. Furthermore, there is an imbalance where certain research disciplines and labs of influential researchers receive more funding. As a group of ECRs with global representation, we examined funding practices, barriers, and facilitators to the current funding systems. We also identified alternatives to the most common funding distribution practices, such as diversifying risk or awarding grants on a partly random basis. Here, we detail recommendations for funding agencies and grant reviewers to improve ECR funding prospects worldwide and promote a fairer and more inclusive funding landscape for ECRs.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\7VIHQXKM\dewinde_et_al_v18.1.pdf}
}

@article{dey2023,
  title = {{{ALIS}}: {{A}} Novel Metric in Lineage-Independent Evaluation of Scholars},
  shorttitle = {{{ALIS}}},
  author = {Dey, Sudeepa Roy and Mathur, Archana and Dayasagar, B.S and Saha, Snehanshu},
  date = {2023-08},
  journaltitle = {Journal of Information Science},
  shortjournal = {Journal of Information Science},
  volume = {49},
  number = {4},
  pages = {1007--1030},
  issn = {0165-5515, 1741-6485},
  doi = {10.1177/01655515211039188},
  url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01655515211039188},
  urldate = {2024-01-07},
  abstract = {Evaluative bibliometrics often attempts to explore various methods to measure individual scholarly influence. Scholarly independence (SI) is a unique indicator that can be used to understand and assess the research performances of individual scholars. The SI is a rare quality that most funding agencies and universities seek during funding decisions or hiring processes. We propose author lineage independent score (ALIS), a unique model to measure SI of a scholar by using his or her academic genealogy tree as the underlying graph structure. The analysis is performed on real data of 100 authors, collected from the Web of Science (WoS) and the Mathematics Genealogy Project. The analysis is further validated on a larger scale, on a simulated sample of 10,000 authors. The simulation exercise is the proof-of-concept for scalability of the metric and the proposed optimisation model. ALIS exploits genealogical relationships between scholars and their mentors and collaborating communities and constructs an influence scoring model based on the Genealogy tree structure of the respective scholars. The implications from the theoretical model are found to be profound in tracing known and recursive citation patterns among peers. The genealogy tree is used to investigate the advisor–advisee relationship and lays the foundation for defining metrics used to calculate the various indicators such as non-genealogy citations (NGCs), non-community citations (NCCs) and other citation quotient (OCQ). As these indicators/parameters are novel and thus not readily accessible, algorithms are written to compute these indicator values for the scholars under study.},
  langid = {english}
}

@article{ebadi2013,
  title = {Impact of {{Funding}} on {{Scientific Output}} and {{Collaboration}}: {{A Survey}} of {{Literature}}},
  shorttitle = {Impact of {{Funding}} on {{Scientific Output}} and {{Collaboration}}},
  author = {Ebadi, Ashkan and Schiffauerova, Andrea},
  date = {2013-12},
  journaltitle = {Journal of Information \& Knowledge Management},
  shortjournal = {J. Info. Know. Mgmt.},
  volume = {12},
  number = {04},
  pages = {1350037},
  issn = {0219-6492, 1793-6926},
  doi = {10.1142/S0219649213500378},
  url = {https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219649213500378},
  urldate = {2023-09-29},
  abstract = {This document critically reviews the papers that investigated the impact of funding on scientific output and on scientific collaboration. For the output, the focus is on the number of articles as a measure of the scientific productivity and the number of citations that a paper received as an indicator of the quality. Various methodological approaches have been adopted (e.g. bibliometrics (a set of methods to analyse the scientific literature quantitatively), statistical analysis) for this purpose. Reviewing the literature revealed that although the general assumption of the positive effect of funding on scientific development is completely (or partially) acknowledged in some studies, one can also find some contradictory results. In addition, we note that analysing the impact of funding on scientific output has attracted more attention of the researchers while investigating the impact of funding on collaboration has been only recently taken into consideration. The paper concludes by comparing the major results and methodologies of the reviewed studies while highlighting the research gaps.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {reading list},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\9XR9IQZS\Ebadi a Schiffauerova - 2013 - Impact of Funding on Scientific Output and Collabo.pdf}
}

@article{fontana2020,
  title = {New and Atypical Combinations: {{An}} Assessment of Novelty and Interdisciplinarity},
  shorttitle = {New and Atypical Combinations},
  author = {Fontana, Magda and Iori, Martina and Montobbio, Fabio and Sinatra, Roberta},
  date = {2020-09},
  journaltitle = {Research Policy},
  shortjournal = {Research Policy},
  volume = {49},
  number = {7},
  pages = {104063},
  issn = {00487333},
  doi = {10.1016/j.respol.2020.104063},
  url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048733320301414},
  urldate = {2023-09-29},
  langid = {english}
}

@article{foster2015,
  title = {Tradition and {{Innovation}} in {{Scientists}}’ {{Research Strategies}}},
  author = {Foster, Jacob G. and Rzhetsky, Andrey and Evans, James A.},
  date = {2015-10},
  journaltitle = {American Sociological Review},
  shortjournal = {Am Sociol Rev},
  volume = {80},
  number = {5},
  pages = {875--908},
  issn = {0003-1224, 1939-8271},
  doi = {10.1177/0003122415601618},
  url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0003122415601618},
  urldate = {2023-10-09},
  abstract = {What factors affect a scientist’s choice of research problem? Qualitative research in the history and sociology of science suggests that this choice is patterned by an “essential tension” between productive tradition and risky innovation. We examine this tension through Bourdieu’s field theory of science, and we explore it empirically by analyzing millions of biomedical abstracts from MEDLINE. We represent the evolving state of chemical knowledge with networks extracted from these abstracts. We then develop a typology of research strategies on these networks. Scientists can introduce novel chemicals and chemical relationships (innovation) or delve deeper into known ones (tradition). They can consolidate knowledge clusters or bridge them. The aggregate distribution of published strategies remains remarkably stable. High-risk innovation strategies are rare and reflect a growing focus on established knowledge. An innovative publication is more likely to achieve high impact than a conservative one, but the additional reward does not compensate for the risk of failing to publish. By studying prizewinners in biomedicine and chemistry, we show that occasional gambles for extraordinary impact are a compelling explanation for observed levels of risky innovation. Our analysis of the essential tension identifies institutional forces that sustain tradition and suggests policy interventions to foster innovation.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\ILI5V6TL\Foster et al. - 2015 - Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research S.pdf}
}

@article{gallo2018,
  title = {External {{Tests}} of {{Peer Review Validity Via Impact Measures}}},
  author = {Gallo, Stephen A. and Glisson, Scott R.},
  date = {2018-08-23},
  journaltitle = {Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics},
  shortjournal = {Front. Res. Metr. Anal.},
  volume = {3},
  pages = {22},
  issn = {2504-0537},
  doi = {10.3389/frma.2018.00022},
  url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frma.2018.00022/full},
  urldate = {2023-10-23},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\GEBWBX4K\Gallo a Glisson - 2018 - External Tests of Peer Review Validity Via Impact .pdf}
}

@article{glaserIndependenceResearchReview2022,
  title = {The {{Independence}} of {{Research}}—{{A Review}} of {{Disciplinary Perspectives}} and {{Outline}} of {{Interdisciplinary Prospects}}},
  author = {Gläser, Jochen and Ash, Mitchell and Buenstorf, Guido and Hopf, David and Hubenschmid, Lara and Janßen, Melike and Laudel, Grit and Schimank, Uwe and Stoll, Marlene and Wilholt, Torsten and Zechlin, Lothar and Lieb, Klaus},
  date = {2022-03},
  journaltitle = {minerva: the international review of ancient art and archaeology (london)},
  shortjournal = {Minerva},
  volume = {60},
  number = {1},
  pages = {105--138},
  issn = {0026-4695, 1573-1871},
  doi = {10.1007/s11024-021-09451-8},
  url = {https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11024-021-09451-8},
  urldate = {2022-07-22},
  abstract = {The independence of research is a key strategic issue of modern societies. Dealing with it appropriately poses legal, economic, political, social and cultural problems for society, which have been studied by the corresponding disciplines and are increasingly the subject of reflexive discourses of scientific communities. Unfortunately, problems of independence are usually framed in disciplinary contexts without due consideration of other perspectives’ relevance or possible contributions. To overcome these limitations, we review disciplinary perspectives and findings on the independence of research and identify interdisciplinary prospects that could inform a research programme.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\LMFWDZH5\Gläser et al. - 2022 - The Independence of Research—A Review of Disciplin.pdf}
}

@article{ho2011,
  title = {{{{\textbf{MatchIt}}}} : {{Nonparametric Preprocessing}} for {{Parametric Causal Inference}}},
  shorttitle = {{{{\textbf{MatchIt}}}}},
  author = {Ho, Daniel E. and Imai, Kosuke and King, Gary and Stuart, Elizabeth A.},
  date = {2011},
  journaltitle = {Journal of Statistical Software},
  shortjournal = {J. Stat. Soft.},
  volume = {42},
  number = {8},
  issn = {1548-7660},
  doi = {10.18637/jss.v042.i08},
  url = {http://www.jstatsoft.org/v42/i08/},
  urldate = {2024-01-07},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\WGVQ9YMV\Ho et al. - 2011 - MatchIt  Nonparametric Preprocessing for P.pdf}
}

@article{horlesberger2013,
  title = {A Concept for Inferring ‘Frontier Research’ in Grant Proposals},
  author = {Hörlesberger, Marianne and Roche, Ivana and Besagni, Dominique and Scherngell, Thomas and François, Claire and Cuxac, Pascal and Schiebel, Edgar and Zitt, Michel and Holste, Dirk},
  date = {2013-11},
  journaltitle = {Scientometrics},
  shortjournal = {Scientometrics},
  volume = {97},
  number = {2},
  pages = {129--148},
  issn = {0138-9130, 1588-2861},
  doi = {10.1007/s11192-013-1008-6},
  url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-1008-6},
  urldate = {2023-11-08},
  langid = {english}
}

@article{hubert2012,
  title = {Le Financement Sur Projet : {{Quelles}} Conséquences Sur Le Travail Des Chercheurs ?},
  shorttitle = {Le Financement Sur Projet},
  author = {Hubert, Matthieu and Louvel, Séverine},
  date = {2012},
  journaltitle = {Mouvements},
  volume = {71},
  number = {3},
  pages = {13},
  issn = {1291-6412, 1776-2995},
  doi = {10.3917/mouv.071.0013},
  url = {http://www.cairn.info/revue-mouvements-2012-3-page-13.htm},
  urldate = {2023-09-29},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\3IBTXGZA\Hubert a Louvel - 2012 - Le financement sur projet  quelles conséquences s.pdf}
}

@article{hull1978,
  title = {Planck's {{Principle}}: {{Do}} Younger Scientists Accept New Scientific Ideas with Greater Alacrity than Older Scientists?},
  shorttitle = {Planck's {{Principle}}},
  author = {Hull, David L. and Tessner, Peter D. and Diamond, Arthur M.},
  date = {1978-11-17},
  journaltitle = {Science (New York, N.Y.)},
  shortjournal = {Science},
  volume = {202},
  number = {4369},
  pages = {717--723},
  issn = {0036-8075, 1095-9203},
  doi = {10.1126/science.202.4369.717},
  url = {https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.202.4369.717},
  urldate = {2023-09-30},
  langid = {english}
}

@article{li2019,
  title = {Early Coauthorship with Top Scientists Predicts Success in Academic Careers},
  author = {Li, Weihua and Aste, Tomaso and Caccioli, Fabio and Livan, Giacomo},
  date = {2019-11-15},
  journaltitle = {Nature Communications},
  shortjournal = {Nat Commun},
  volume = {10},
  number = {1},
  pages = {5170},
  issn = {2041-1723},
  doi = {10.1038/s41467-019-13130-4},
  url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13130-4},
  urldate = {2023-10-09},
  abstract = {Abstract             We examined the long-term impact of coauthorship with established, highly-cited scientists on the careers of junior researchers in four scientific disciplines. Here, using matched pair analysis, we find that junior researchers who coauthor work with top scientists enjoy a persistent competitive advantage throughout the rest of their careers, compared to peers with similar early career profiles but without top coauthors. Such early coauthorship predicts a higher probability of repeatedly coauthoring work with top-cited scientists, and, ultimately, a higher probability of becoming one. Junior researchers affiliated with less prestigious institutions show the most benefits from coauthorship with a top scientist. As a consequence, we argue that such institutions may hold vast amounts of untapped potential, which may be realised by improving access to top scientists.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\Q3X5JAPZ\Li et al. - 2019 - Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts su.pdf}
}

@article{lienard2018,
  title = {Intellectual Synthesis in Mentorship Determines Success in Academic Careers},
  author = {Liénard, Jean F. and Achakulvisut, Titipat and Acuna, Daniel E. and David, Stephen V.},
  date = {2018-11-27},
  journaltitle = {Nature Communications},
  shortjournal = {Nat Commun},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {4840},
  issn = {2041-1723},
  doi = {10.1038/s41467-018-07034-y},
  url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07034-y},
  urldate = {2023-10-09},
  abstract = {Abstract             As academic careers become more competitive, junior scientists need to understand the value that mentorship brings to their success in academia. Previous research has found that, unsurprisingly, successful mentors tend to train successful students. But what characteristics of this relationship predict success, and how? We analyzed an open-access database of 18,856 researchers who have undergone both graduate and postdoctoral training, compiled across several fields of biomedical science with an emphasis on neuroscience. Our results show that postdoctoral mentors were more instrumental to trainees’ success compared to graduate mentors. Trainees’ success in academia was also predicted by the degree of intellectual synthesis between their graduate and postdoctoral mentors. Researchers were more likely to succeed if they trained under mentors with disparate expertise and integrated that expertise into their own work. This pattern has held up over at least 40 years, despite fluctuations in the number of students and availability of independent research positions.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\P24VSDW6\Liénard et al. - 2018 - Intellectual synthesis in mentorship determines su.pdf}
}

@article{lovitts*2005,
  title = {Being a Good {{Course}}‐taker Is Not Enough: {{A}} Theoretical Perspective on the Transition to Independent Research},
  shorttitle = {Being a Good {{Course}}‐taker Is Not Enough},
  author = {Lovitts *, Barbara E.},
  date = {2005-04},
  journaltitle = {Studies in Higher Education},
  shortjournal = {Studies in Higher Education},
  volume = {30},
  number = {2},
  pages = {137--154},
  issn = {0307-5079, 1470-174X},
  doi = {10.1080/03075070500043093},
  url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075070500043093},
  urldate = {2023-09-29},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {reading list},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\QTHE5DXK\Lovitts  - 2005 - Being a good course‐taker is not enough a theoret.pdf}
}

@article{ma2020,
  title = {Mentorship and Protégé Success in {{STEM}} Fields},
  author = {Ma, Yifang and Mukherjee, Satyam and Uzzi, Brian},
  date = {2020-06-23},
  journaltitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  shortjournal = {Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.},
  volume = {117},
  number = {25},
  pages = {14077--14083},
  issn = {0027-8424, 1091-6490},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.1915516117},
  url = {https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1915516117},
  urldate = {2023-10-09},
  abstract = {Significance             Mentorship is arguably a scientist’s most significant collaborative relationship; yet of all collaborations, comparatively little research exists on the link between mentorship and protégé success. Using new large-scale data from the genealogical and performance records of 10s of thousands of scientists worldwide from 1960 to the present, we found that mentorship is associated with diverse forms of protégé success, significantly increasing protégés’ chances of producing celebrated research, being inducted into the National Academy of Science, and achieving superstardom. Paradoxically, protégés achieve their highest impact when they display intellectual independence from their mentors. Protégés do their best work when they break from their mentor’s research topics and coauthor no more than a small portion of their overall research with their mentors.           ,              Einstein believed that mentors are especially influential in a protégé’s intellectual development, yet the link between mentorship and protégé success remains a mystery. We marshaled genealogical data on nearly 40,000 scientists who published 1,167,518 papers in biomedicine, chemistry, math, or physics between 1960 and 2017 to investigate the relationship between mentorship and protégé achievement. In our data, we find groupings of mentors with similar records and reputations who attracted protégés of similar talents and expected levels of professional success. However, each grouping has an exception: One mentor has an additional hidden capability that can be mentored to their protégés. They display skill in creating and communicating prizewinning research. Because the mentor’s ability for creating and communicating celebrated research existed before the prize’s conferment, protégés of future prizewinning mentors can be uniquely exposed to mentorship for conducting celebrated research. Our models explain 34–44\% of the variance in protégé success and reveals three main findings. First, mentorship strongly predicts protégé success across diverse disciplines. Mentorship is associated with a 2×-to-4× rise in a protégé’s likelihood of prizewinning, National Academy of Science (NAS) induction, or superstardom relative to matched protégés. Second, mentorship is significantly associated with an increase in the probability of protégés pioneering their own research topics and being midcareer late bloomers. Third, contrary to conventional thought, protégés do not succeed most by following their mentors’ research topics but by studying original topics and coauthoring no more than a small fraction of papers with their mentors.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\DAGE5D28\Ma et al. - 2020 - Mentorship and protégé success in STEM fields.pdf}
}

@article{machacek2022,
  title = {Researchers’ Institutional Mobility: Bibliometric Evidence on Academic Inbreeding and Internationalization},
  shorttitle = {Researchers’ Institutional Mobility},
  author = {Macháček, Vít and Srholec, Martin and Ferreira, Márcia R and Robinson-Garcia, Nicolas and Costas, Rodrigo},
  date = {2022-02-26},
  journaltitle = {Science and Public Policy},
  volume = {49},
  number = {1},
  pages = {85--97},
  issn = {0302-3427, 1471-5430},
  doi = {10.1093/scipol/scab064},
  url = {https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/49/1/85/6368540},
  urldate = {2023-10-23},
  abstract = {Abstract             We propose institutional mobility indicators based on researchers’ mobility flows in 22 major fields of science across 1,130 Leiden Ranking institutions from 64 countries. We base our indicators on data from the Dimensions database and Global Research Identifier Database. We use researchers’ first and last affiliations to estimate the extent authors have moved across institutions as well as countries. For each institution, we quantify the shares of researchers with the same affiliation (insiders), those who came from another institution within the country (domestic outsiders), and those coming from a different country (foreign outsiders). Institutions in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe have the highest share of insiders, whereas institutions in Northern America and Western and Northern Europe have a higher share of foreign outsiders. Foreign outsiders are most common in small and wealthy countries. No disciplinary differences are observed, as captured by the field classification scheme of Dimensions.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\CYCJAERQ\Macháček et al. - 2022 - Researchers’ institutional mobility bibliometric .pdf}
}

@article{moherAssessingScientistsHiring2018,
  title = {Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure},
  author = {Moher, David and Naudet, Florian and Cristea, Ioana A. and Miedema, Frank and Ioannidis, John P. A. and Goodman, Steven N.},
  date = {2018-03-29},
  journaltitle = {PLOS Biology},
  shortjournal = {PLOS Biology},
  volume = {16},
  number = {3},
  pages = {e2004089},
  publisher = {{Public Library of Science}},
  issn = {1545-7885},
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089},
  url = {https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089},
  urldate = {2023-07-25},
  abstract = {Assessment of researchers is necessary for decisions of hiring, promotion, and tenure. A burgeoning number of scientific leaders believe the current system of faculty incentives and rewards is misaligned with the needs of society and disconnected from the evidence about the causes of the reproducibility crisis and suboptimal quality of the scientific publication record. To address this issue, particularly for the clinical and life sciences, we convened a 22-member expert panel workshop in Washington, DC, in January 2017. Twenty-two academic leaders, funders, and scientists participated in the meeting. As background for the meeting, we completed a selective literature review of 22 key documents critiquing the current incentive system. From each document, we extracted how the authors perceived the problems of assessing science and scientists, the unintended consequences of maintaining the status quo for assessing scientists, and details of their proposed solutions. The resulting table was used as a seed for participant discussion. This resulted in six principles for assessing scientists and associated research and policy implications. We hope the content of this paper will serve as a basis for establishing best practices and redesigning the current approaches to assessing scientists by the many players involved in that process.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Bibliometrics,Citation analysis,Research assessment,Research design,Research quality assessment,Science policy,Scientific publishing,Scientists},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\XSCUWITW\Moher et al. - 2018 - Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and te.pdf}
}

@book{nationalresearchcouncilus2005,
  title = {Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of New Investigators in Biomedical Research},
  shorttitle = {Bridges to Independence},
  editor = {National Research Council (U.S.)},
  date = {2005},
  publisher = {{National Academies Press}},
  location = {{Washington, D.C}},
  isbn = {978-0-309-09626-3 978-0-309-54965-3},
  pagetotal = {153},
  keywords = {Biology,Medical research personnel,National Institutes of Health (U.S.),Research grants,United States}
}

@article{neufeldPeerReviewbasedSelection2013,
  title = {Peer Review-Based Selection Decisions in Individual Research Funding, Applicants’ Publication Strategies and Performance: {{The}} Case of the {{ERC Starting Grants}}},
  shorttitle = {Peer Review-Based Selection Decisions in Individual Research Funding, Applicants’ Publication Strategies and Performance},
  author = {Neufeld, Jörg and Huber, Nathalie and Wegner, Antje},
  date = {2013-10-01},
  journaltitle = {Research Evaluation},
  shortjournal = {Research Evaluation},
  volume = {22},
  number = {4},
  pages = {237--247},
  issn = {0958-2029},
  doi = {10.1093/reseval/rvt014},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt014},
  urldate = {2023-07-25},
  abstract = {This article investigates the dependence of funding decisions on past publication performance amongst applicants for the Starting Grants Programme, offered by the European Research Council. Publication data will be contrasted with individual publication strategies generated by an online survey. The empirical results will be discussed against the background of evaluation studies on similar funding schemes for young scientists (Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds; Bornmann and Daniel 2007, Individual Grant for the Advancement of Research Leaders: Melin and Danell 2006, and the Emmy Noether-Programme (ENP): Hornbostel et al. 2009, Neufeld and von Ins 2011]. Most of these studies focus on the respective peer review system by bibliometrically investigating its ability to select the ‘best’ applicants for funding, although they come to different results. However, an overview of the studies reveals that potential differences in the past publication performance between approved and rejected applicants depend not only on selection decisions (or the peer review) but also on further programme-specific factors such as finiteness/openness of the overall budget and the level of self- or ‘pre-selection’ amongst potential applicants. As the European Research Council Starting Grants is a highly prestigious international funding programme for young scientists with demanding eligibility requirements and low acceptance rates, it constitutes a unique case study for further investigating the relationship between peer review-based selection decisions and applicants’ publication performance.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\David Janků\\Zotero\\storage\\ND73A3ZG\\Neufeld et al. - 2013 - Peer review-based selection decisions in individua.pdf;C\:\\Users\\David Janků\\Zotero\\storage\\U87FYB27\\1658402.html}
}

@online{nwo2023,
  title = {{{NWO Talent Programme}} | {{Veni}} - {{Science}} Domain 2023},
  author = {NWO},
  date = {2023},
  url = {https://www.nwo.nl/en/calls/nwo-talent-programme-veni-science-domain-2023},
  urldate = {2023-07-25}
}

@article{packalen2019,
  title = {Age and the {{Trying Out}} of {{New Ideas}}},
  author = {Packalen, Mikko and Bhattacharya, Jay},
  date = {2019-06},
  journaltitle = {Journal of Human Capital},
  shortjournal = {Journal of Human Capital},
  volume = {13},
  number = {2},
  pages = {341--373},
  issn = {1932-8575, 1932-8664},
  doi = {10.1086/703160},
  url = {https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/703160},
  urldate = {2023-09-30},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\FGT49W2V\Packalen and Bhattacharya - 2019 - Age and the Trying Out of New Ideas.pdf}
}

@article{pickett2019,
  title = {The Increasing Importance of Fellowships and Career Development Awards in the Careers of Early-Stage Biomedical Academic Researchers},
  author = {Pickett, Christopher L.},
  editor = {Reddy, Sakamuri V.},
  date = {2019-10-17},
  journaltitle = {PLOS ONE},
  shortjournal = {PLoS ONE},
  volume = {14},
  number = {10},
  pages = {e0223876},
  issn = {1932-6203},
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0223876},
  url = {https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223876},
  urldate = {2023-09-30},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\D5IK5QY2\Pickett - 2019 - The increasing importance of fellowships and caree.pdf}
}

@article{powell2016,
  title = {Young, Talented and Fed-up: {{Scientists}} Tell Their Stories},
  shorttitle = {Young, Talented and Fed-Up},
  author = {Powell, Kendall},
  date = {2016-10},
  journaltitle = {Nature},
  shortjournal = {Nature},
  volume = {538},
  number = {7626},
  pages = {446--449},
  issn = {0028-0836, 1476-4687},
  doi = {10.1038/538446a},
  url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/538446a},
  urldate = {2023-09-30},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\X55Y7WX6\Powell - 2016 - Young, talented and fed-up scientists tell their .pdf}
}

@article{rojkoScientificPerformanceResearch2022,
  title = {Scientific Performance across Research Disciplines: {{Trends}} and Differences in the Case of {{Slovenia}}},
  shorttitle = {Scientific Performance across Research Disciplines},
  author = {Rojko, Katarina and Lužar, Borut},
  date = {2022-05},
  journaltitle = {Journal of Informetrics},
  shortjournal = {Journal of Informetrics},
  volume = {16},
  number = {2},
  pages = {101261},
  issn = {17511577},
  doi = {10.1016/j.joi.2022.101261},
  url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S175115772200013X},
  urldate = {2022-06-09},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\IE4F9AX8\Rojko a Lužar - 2022 - Scientific performance across research disciplines.pdf}
}

@article{rzhetsky2015,
  title = {Choosing Experiments to Accelerate Collective Discovery},
  author = {Rzhetsky, Andrey and Foster, Jacob G. and Foster, Ian T. and Evans, James A.},
  date = {2015-11-24},
  journaltitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  shortjournal = {Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.},
  volume = {112},
  number = {47},
  pages = {14569--14574},
  issn = {0027-8424, 1091-6490},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.1509757112},
  url = {https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1509757112},
  urldate = {2022-06-09},
  abstract = {We used the same procedure to extract chemical relationships within US patents (SI Text). This process resulted in 30,060 unique chemicals with at least one link to others and 12,342,474 links between chemicals, corresponding to 1,338,753 unique chemical relationships. This network represents accumulated chemical knowledge within 2,363,858 articles and 295,812 patents. The combined network has a broad, approximately lognormal degree distribution (45, 46) (Fig. S8).},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\J9UWNWR2\Rzhetsky et al. - 2015 - Choosing experiments to accelerate collective disc.pdf}
}

@article{sattari2022,
  title = {The Ripple Effects of Funding on Researchers and Output},
  author = {Sattari, Reza and Bae, Jung and Berkes, Enrico and Weinberg, Bruce A.},
  date = {2022-04-22},
  journaltitle = {Science Advances},
  shortjournal = {Sci. Adv.},
  volume = {8},
  number = {16},
  pages = {eabb7348},
  issn = {2375-2548},
  doi = {10.1126/sciadv.abb7348},
  url = {https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abb7348},
  urldate = {2023-09-29},
  abstract = {Using unique, new, matched UMETRICS data on people employed on research projects and Author-ity data on biomedical publications, this paper shows that National Institutes of Health funding stimulates research by supporting the teams that conduct it. While faculty—both principal investigators (PIs) and other faculty—and their productivity are heavily affected by funding, so are trainees and staff. The largest effects of funding on research output are ripple effects on publications that do not include PIs. While funders focus on research output from projects, they would be well advised to consider how funding ripples through the wide range of people, including trainees and staff, employed on projects. , NIH funding stimulates research by generating ripple effects through trainees, staff, and others employed on projects.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {reading list},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\ZS23BPGI\Sattari et al. - 2022 - The ripple effects of funding on researchers and o.pdf}
}

@article{scholten2021,
  title = {Funding for Few, Anticipation among All: {{Effects}} of Excellence Funding on Academic Research Groups},
  shorttitle = {Funding for Few, Anticipation among All},
  author = {Scholten, Wout and Franssen, Thomas P and Van Drooge, Leonie and De Rijcke, Sarah and Hessels, Laurens K},
  date = {2021-06-23},
  journaltitle = {Science and Public Policy},
  volume = {48},
  number = {2},
  pages = {265--275},
  issn = {0302-3427, 1471-5430},
  doi = {10.1093/scipol/scab018},
  url = {https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/48/2/265/6184850},
  urldate = {2023-11-08},
  abstract = {Abstract             In spite of the growing literature about excellence funding in science, we know relatively little about its implications for academic research practices. This article compares organizational and epistemic effects of excellence funding across four disciplinary fields, based on in-depth case studies of four research groups in combination with twelve reference groups. In spite of the highly selective nature of excellence funding, all groups employ dedicated strategies to maximize their chances of acquiring it, which we call strategic anticipation. The groups with ample excellence funding acquire a relatively autonomous position within their organization. While the epistemic characteristics of the four fields shape how excellence funding can be used, we find that in all fields there is an increase in epistemic autonomy. However, in fields with more individual research practices a longer time horizon for grants, beyond the usual 5 years, would fit better with the research process.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\EMGRM37E\Scholten et al. - 2021 - Funding for few, anticipation among all Effects o.pdf}
}

@online{StartingGrantERC,
  title = {Starting {{Grant}} | {{ERC}}},
  date = {2023},
  url = {https://erc.europa.eu/apply-grant/starting-grant},
  urldate = {2023-07-25},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\35RLSFV8\starting-grant.html}
}

@article{vanarensbergenDifferentViewsScholarly2014,
  title = {Different Views on Scholarly Talent: {{What}} Are the Talents We Are Looking for in Science?},
  shorttitle = {Different Views on Scholarly Talent},
  author = {family=Arensbergen, given=Pleun, prefix=van, useprefix=true and family=Weijden, given=Inge, prefix=vander, useprefix=true and family=Besselaar, given=Peter, prefix=vanden, useprefix=true},
  date = {2014-10-01},
  journaltitle = {Research Evaluation},
  shortjournal = {Research Evaluation},
  volume = {23},
  number = {4},
  pages = {273--284},
  issn = {0958-2029},
  doi = {10.1093/reseval/rvu015},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu015},
  urldate = {2023-07-25},
  abstract = {In this article, we study the evaluation of talented early career researchers, as done in grant allocation processes. To better understand funding decisions, we studied the grant allocation process in more detail, and compared the notion of talent in grant allocation with more general notions of talent existing in the academic work environment. The comparison is based on interviews with 29 scholars who have experience with identifying talent both in their daily academic work and in the process of grant allocation. Overall, there is large agreement on the notion of talent. However, the characteristics ascribed to top talent vary depending on the evaluation context. In grant allocation, a narrower talent definition prevails compared with more general evaluation. Furthermore, difficulties arise in the process of panel decision-making, when selection criteria need to be concrete and explicit to enable comparison. Having to choose between many applicants of similar quality makes the selection process liable to subjectivity, arbitrariness, and randomness. Despite these uncertainties, grants are ascribed a very high symbolic value. Small quality differences are enlarged into considerable differences in recognition, consequently affecting career opportunities, as they provide academics with both financial and symbolic resources.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\David Janků\\Zotero\\storage\\GM9P6DBN\\van Arensbergen et al. - 2014 - Different views on scholarly talent What are the .pdf;C\:\\Users\\David Janků\\Zotero\\storage\\4D78PWGY\\2889045.html}
}

@article{vandenbesselaar2015,
  title = {Early Career Grants, Performance, and Careers: {{A}} Study on Predictive Validity of Grant Decisions},
  shorttitle = {Early Career Grants, Performance, and Careers},
  author = {Van Den Besselaar, Peter and Sandström, Ulf},
  date = {2015-10},
  journaltitle = {Journal of Informetrics},
  shortjournal = {Journal of Informetrics},
  volume = {9},
  number = {4},
  pages = {826--838},
  issn = {17511577},
  doi = {10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.011},
  url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1751157715300067},
  urldate = {2023-09-30},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {reading list}
}

@article{vandenbesselaarMeasuringResearcherIndependence2019,
  title = {Measuring Researcher Independence Using Bibliometric Data: {{A}} Proposal for a New Performance Indicator},
  shorttitle = {Measuring Researcher Independence Using Bibliometric Data},
  author = {family=Besselaar, given=Peter, prefix=vanden, useprefix=true and Sandström, Ulf},
  editor = {Bornmann, Lutz},
  date = {2019-03-27},
  journaltitle = {PLOS ONE},
  shortjournal = {PLoS ONE},
  volume = {14},
  number = {3},
  pages = {e0202712},
  issn = {1932-6203},
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0202712},
  url = {https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202712},
  urldate = {2022-06-09},
  abstract = {Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used to evaluate individual scientists–as is exemplified by the popularity of the many other publication and citation-based indicators used in evaluation. These indicators, however, cover at best some of the quality dimensions relevant for assessing a researcher: productivity and impact. At the same time, research quality has more dimensions than productivity and impact alone. As current bibliometric indicators are not covering various important quality dimensions, we here contribute to developing better indicators for those quality dimensions not yet addressed. One of the quality dimensions lacking valid indicators is an individual researcher’s independence. We propose indicators to measure different aspects of independence: two assessing whether a researcher has developed an own collaboration network and two others assessing the level of thematic independence. Taken together they form an independence indicator. We illustrate how these indicators distinguish between researchers that are equally productive and have a considerable impact. The independence indicator is a step forward in evaluating individual scholarly quality.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\UZIR7FRR\van den Besselaar a Sandström - 2019 - Measuring researcher independence using bibliometr.pdf}
}

@online{WalterBenjaminProgramme,
  title = {Walter Benjamin Programme},
  url = {https://www.dfg.de/en/research_funding/programmes/individual/walter_benjamin/index.html},
  urldate = {2023-07-25},
  abstract = {Read more},
  langid = {Englisch},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\UP22E5IK\index.html}
}

@article{wang2018,
  title = {Funding Model and Creativity in Science: {{Competitive}} versus Block Funding and Status Contingency Effects},
  shorttitle = {Funding Model and Creativity in Science},
  author = {Wang, Jian and Lee, You-Na and Walsh, John P.},
  date = {2018-07},
  journaltitle = {Research Policy},
  shortjournal = {Research Policy},
  volume = {47},
  number = {6},
  pages = {1070--1083},
  issn = {00487333},
  doi = {10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.014},
  url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048733318300726},
  urldate = {2023-09-29},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\3LPTAQI2\Wang et al. - 2018 - Funding model and creativity in science Competiti.pdf}
}

@book{wang2021,
  title = {The {{Science}} of {{Science}}},
  author = {Wang, Dashun and Barabási, Albert-László},
  date = {2021-03-25},
  edition = {1},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  doi = {10.1017/9781108610834},
  url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108610834/type/book},
  urldate = {2023-09-26},
  abstract = {This is the first comprehensive overview of the 'science of science,' an emerging interdisciplinary field that relies on big data to unveil the reproducible patterns that govern individual scientific careers and the workings of science. It explores the roots of scientific impact, the role of productivity and creativity, when and what kind of collaborations are effective, the impact of failure and success in a scientific career, and what metrics can tell us about the fundamental workings of science. The book relies on data to draw actionable insights, which can be applied by individuals to further their career or decision makers to enhance the role of science in society. With anecdotes and detailed, easy-to-follow explanations of the research, this book is accessible to all scientists and graduate students, policymakers, and administrators with an interest in the wider scientific enterprise.},
  isbn = {978-1-108-61083-4 978-1-108-49266-9 978-1-108-71695-6}
}

@book{wang2021a,
  title = {The {{Science}} of {{Science}}},
  author = {Wang, Dashun and Barabási, Albert-László},
  date = {2021-03-25},
  edition = {1},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  doi = {10.1017/9781108610834},
  url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108610834/type/book},
  urldate = {2023-09-26},
  abstract = {This is the first comprehensive overview of the 'science of science,' an emerging interdisciplinary field that relies on big data to unveil the reproducible patterns that govern individual scientific careers and the workings of science. It explores the roots of scientific impact, the role of productivity and creativity, when and what kind of collaborations are effective, the impact of failure and success in a scientific career, and what metrics can tell us about the fundamental workings of science. The book relies on data to draw actionable insights, which can be applied by individuals to further their career or decision makers to enhance the role of science in society. With anecdotes and detailed, easy-to-follow explanations of the research, this book is accessible to all scientists and graduate students, policymakers, and administrators with an interest in the wider scientific enterprise.},
  isbn = {978-1-108-61083-4 978-1-108-49266-9 978-1-108-71695-6}
}

@article{wright2017,
  title = {What Faculty Hiring Committees Want},
  author = {Wright, Charles B and Vanderford, Nathan L},
  date = {2017-09},
  journaltitle = {Nature Biotechnology},
  shortjournal = {Nat Biotechnol},
  volume = {35},
  number = {9},
  pages = {885--887},
  issn = {1087-0156, 1546-1696},
  doi = {10.1038/nbt.3962},
  url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3962},
  urldate = {2023-09-30},
  langid = {english}
}

@article{yoshioka-kobayashi2021,
  title = {Early Career Training and Development of Academic Independence: {{A}} Case of Life Sciences in {{Japan}}},
  shorttitle = {Early Career Training and Development of Academic Independence},
  author = {Yoshioka-Kobayashi, Tohru and Shibayama, Sotaro},
  date = {2021-12-02},
  journaltitle = {Studies in Higher Education},
  shortjournal = {Studies in Higher Education},
  volume = {46},
  number = {12},
  pages = {2751--2773},
  issn = {0307-5079, 1470-174X},
  doi = {10.1080/03075079.2020.1817889},
  url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2020.1817889},
  urldate = {2022-07-29},
  abstract = {Academic training is the initial step for junior scientists to learn to develop into independent scientists. This study investigates how supervisors decide to employ different approaches of early-career research training, and how these approaches influence the degree of trainees’ independence in their later careers. Drawing on survey and bibliometric data of life scientists in Japanese universities, this study presents the following findings. First, if scientists are allowed higher autonomy in upstream research functions in early-career training, they later tend to attain greater organizational independence with higher organizational ranks. Second, if scientists are encouraged to deviate from conventional research topics during early-career training, they later tend to achieve greater cognitive independence by producing original research output. Third, the differences in the training approaches chosen by individual supervisors are influenced by the training that they had received in their early-career training. Overall, the study suggests that training approaches and independence of scientists are socialized in the local training context and passed down from one generation to the next.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {C:\Users\David Janků\Zotero\storage\9YBZNMTK\Yoshioka-Kobayashi a Shibayama - 2021 - Early career training and development of academic .pdf}
}

@online{zotero-19,
  url = {https://erc.europa.eu/funding/starting-grants}
}

@incollection{zotero-2779,
  url = {https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5877ca6986e6c00f05f58f84/t/60d3562161128d118e0af55d/1624462884295/part-1-the-science-of-career.pdf}
}