The National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) in Japan conducted a survey to corresponding authors, affiliated with Japanese organizations, of the scientific publications published during the period of 2004 to 2012. The survey asked about research funds and teams of research activities that produced scientific publications (the number of respondents is about 11 thousand and response rate is 53%). The analyses of the survey revealed that research funds and teams that used in research activities vary depending on the affiliation sector and the affiliation university group that was defined by the publication share in Japan. The percentage of research activities that used extramural funds is the largest in the university group that has the largest publication share and tends to be smaller in the university groups with smaller publication share; however, the percentage of research activities that used extramural funds has been increasing in all university groups reflecting the increasing of the competitive funds in Japanese system. Analyses of the team composition show that junior researchers (bachelor/master’s students, PhD students, and postdoctoral fellows) are involved in the majority of research activities in universities; and therefore, the junior researchers play a crucial role in research. Each percentage of the involvement of the bachelor/master’s students, PhD students, and postdoctoral fellows also differs among the university groups and the research field. We also found that citation counts of the scientific publications correlates with both research funds and team composition. In Japan, the number of doctoral course entrants has been decreasing ever since 2004 and weight of competitive funding has been increasing in the past decade, therefore our results suggest that how to attract and train junior researchers and secure stable funding are crucial to preserve research capability both in Japanese universities and academic societies.

1. Competition over research funds and
junior researchers in Japanese
universities: evidence from a large-scale
survey to corresponding authors of scientific
publications from 2004 to 2012
Masatsura IGAMI
National Institute of Science and Technology
Policy (NISTEP), Japan

2. • Japan’s presence in science is fading (Decline in various ranking).
• The higher education sector, especially national universities, in Japan
shows weak growth in R&D expenditure and the number of
researchers compared to other major countries, e.g. Germany.
2
Backgrounds
Introduction
• The management expenses grants of
national universities (block fund) were
annually reduced by 1% since 2006 for
about ten years.
• Increasing weight of competitive funds.
• The number of doctoral course entrants
has been declining ever since 2003.
https://www.natureindex.com/supplements/nature-index-2017-japan/index
Japan’s status as a science superstar is
vulnerable.
nature
INDEX 2017
JAPAN

3. • The NISTEP conducted various analyses from aspects of both inputs
(researchers, research expenditure) and outputs (scientific papers).
• Detailed information on research activities is needed for planning and
implementation of STI policies and for research management in
individual organization, especially for the design of incentive system
and resource allocation.
• Understanding of research activities in detail is also important to
avoid simplified efficiency discussion (output/input).
• Based on the above mentioned backgrounds, the NISTEP conducted
the survey aiming to get detailed information on the research
activities that produced scientific papers.
3
Purpose of this research
Introduction
Research activities
Inputs Outputs

4. • The population of the survey: Articles published from 2004 to 2012
and the corresponding author is in Japan (Web of Science XML).
• We randomly selected e-mail addresses of the corresponding authors
(31,000 authors without duplication) from the population and sent
the invitation to the survey by e-mail.
• About 20,000 e-mails arrived to the authors and we got about 11,000
responses. Response rate in the arrived e-mails is 53%. The survey
was conducted the end of 2013.
• Information collected.
– Corresponding author: Job title, employment status, …
– Characteristics of research: Stage of research, type of research, …
– Source of funds
– Composition of authors
4
Overview of the survey
Introduction

5. • In the survey, we asked respondents about the source of funds for the
research activities that resulted in the focal papers.
• Japanese funding system (Dual support system)
5
Source of funds
Source of funds
Type of research fund
Intramural funds
(excl. personnel cost)
Own fund of the institution to which the authors belong
Extramural funds
(incl. personnel cost)
External fund
from the
Japanese
(national)
government
Open-type research funds for institutions (Global COE, WPI, etc.)
Open-type
research funds
for projects
Grant-in-aid for scientific research (KAKENHI)
Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant
Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)
New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
Organization (NEDO)
Others
Non-open-type research funds (national projects led by the government,
etc.)
External funds from Japanese prefectural governments (other than the Japanese national
government)
External funds from foreign governments (not Japan)
External funds from private enterprises
External funds from other sources (foundations, etc.)

6. 6
Percentage of the source of funds by sector
• The intramural fund and the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research
(KAKENHI) are two largest funds in national, private, and public
universities in Japan.
Source of funds
38%
61%
50%
62%
89%
3%
4%
38%
21%
27%
11% 3%
5%
4%
4%4%
4%
6%
5%
8%
7%
5%
6%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
National universities, etc.
Private universities
Public universities
Public research institutions
Private firms
Intramural Extramural for organizations KAKENHI
MHLW JST NEDO
Private firms Other extramural
Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research are competitive funds that are intended to significantly develop all
scientific research (research based on the free ideas of the researcher), from basic to applied research
in all fields, ranging from the humanities and the social sciences to the natural sciences.
Intramural fund
Grants-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (KAKENHI)

7. 21%
40%
32%
45%
82%
36%
35%
35%
31%
14%
15%
12%
13%
8%
4%
3%
5%
15%
8%
10%
10%
3%
7%
3%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
National universities, etc.
Private universities
Public universities
Public research institutions
Private firms
01_Only intramural 02_Intramural+Extramural(1)
03_Intramural+Extramural(2) 04_Intramural+Extramural(3 or more)
05_Only extramural(1) 06_Only extramural(2)
07_Only extramural(3 or more) 7
Combination of the source of funds by sector
• The percentage of research only used the intramural fund is the largest
(82%) in the private firms, followed by public research institutions (45%),
private universities (40%), public universities (32%), and national
universities (21%).
Source of funds
+

8. • In 2012, there were 771 universities in Japan, 179 of them had more
than 0.05% scientific paper share in Japan.
8
Categorization of universities with scientific paper
share in Japan
● Group 1（5%～） 4
● Group 2（1%～5%） 13
● Group 3（0.5%～1%） 27
● Group 4（0.05%～0.5%） 135
179
Tohoku University
University of Tokyo
Kyoto University
Osaka University
Source of funds
National
Public
(local gov.)
Private
Group 1 4 0 0
Group 2 10 0 3
Group 3 18 4 5
Group 4 36 15 84

9. • The percentage of the research activities that only used the intramural
funds decreased in 2010-2012 compared with that in 2004-2006 in all
university groups.
9
Combination of the source of funds by university
group (time series)
Source of funds
3%
22%
27%
36%
39%
34%
36%
38%
35%
40%
16%
14%
15%
12%
9%
4%
4%
4%
4%
20%
15%
11%
8%
8%
11%
7%
4%
4%
3%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
01_Only intramural
02_Intramural+Extramural(1)
03_Intramural+Extramural(2)
04_Intramural+Extramural(3 or more)
05_Only extramural(1)
06_Only extramural(2)
07_Only extramural(3 or more)
16%
13%
11%
25%
20%
20%
29%
28%
23%
40%
33%
34%
38%
34%
29%
40%
37%
32%
39%
36%
40%
36%
36%
32%
14%
15%
17%
13%
14%
17%
14%
16%
14%
10%
14%
13%
3%
4%
4%
3%
5%
4%
5%
5%
3%
3%
6%
19%
20%
22%
12%
16%
17%
11%
9%
12%
7%
9%
10%
9%
12%
11%
5%
7%
8%
4%
3%
5%
3%
5%
5%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2004_2006
2007_2009
2010_2012
2004_2006
2007_2009
2010_2012
2004_2006
2007_2009
2010_2012
2004_2006
2007_2009
2010_2012
Group1Group2Group3Group4
+

10. 0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2004_2006 2007_2009 2010_2012
10
Scientific papers by the source of funds
Source of funds
+3,022
Only Extramural
+1,970
Intramural + Extramural (2 or more)
-3,188
Intramural + Extramural (1)
-6,095
Only intramural
• Decline of the number of scientific papers that used only intramural fund
is the largest and it likely main cause of the stagnation of the number of
papers from Japan.
Note: The result of population estimation using the results of the survey.
+2,205
Corresponding authors who are
located in abroad.
+

11. • In the survey, we asked respondents about job title, affiliated sector, and
employment status of all authors.
• Not about individual author, but the number of authors that fits in the
specific category, e.g., university-professor.
11
Composition of authors
Composition of authors
Junior researchers
Professor or equivalents
Associate professor or equivalents
Assistant professor or equivalents
Lecturer or equivalents
Research assistant and technician
Others
Postdoctoral fellow
PhD student
Bachelor/master's student
Job title
Senior class researchers

12. 27%
46%
34%
59%
89%
19%
21%
19%
5%
3%
22%
15%
22%
5%
8%
5%
8%
9%
6%
7%
23%
6%
3%
3%
7%
3%
6%
4%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
National universities, etc.
Private universities
Public universities
Public research institutions
Private firms
No junior researchers (Only senior class) SC+Bachelor/master's students
SC+PhD students SC+Bachelor/master's students +PhD students
SC+Postdocs SC+Postdocs+Bachelor/master's students
SC+Postdocs+PhD students SC+Junior researchers(All types)
Only junior researchers
12
Combination of job titles of authors by sector
Composition of authors
 Junior researchers are participating in the majority of research activities
in universities in Japan. The participation of the postdoctoral fellows is
the highest in the public research institute.
Note: Junior researchers: Bachelor/master's students, PhD students, and postdoctoral fellows. “SC” means senior class
researcher.
+

13. 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Group1
Group2
Group3
Group4
Othergroup
Participationratio
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2004_2006
2007_2009
2010_2012
2004_2006
2007_2009
2010_2012
2004_2006
2007_2009
2010_2012
2004_2006
2007_2009
2010_2012
Participationratio
Junior researchers Postdocs
PhD students Bachelor/master's students
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
• Degree of the participation of bachelor/master's students, PhD students,
and postdoctoral fellows varies depending on the university group.
• Higher participation ratio of PhD students and postdoctoral fellows in
university groups with higher share in scientific paper.
13
Participation of junior researchers by university group
Composition of authors
Note: Junior researchers: Bachelor/master's students, PhD students, and postdoctoral fellows. “SC” means senior class
researcher.

14. • Degree of the participation of junior researchers also varies depending
on the field of science.
14
Participation of junior researchers by the field of
science
Composition of authors
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Chemistry
Environment/Ecology
SpaceScience
Immunology
MolecularBiology&…
Biology&…
AgriculturalSciences
Microbiology
Plant&Animal…
MaterialsScience
Physics
Total
Pharmacology&…
Geosciences
Engineering
Neuroscience&…
ClinicalMedicine
ComputerScience
Psychiatry/Psychology
Mathematics
Participationratio
Postdocs PhD students Bachelor/master's students Junior researchers
Note: Results of national universities, private universities, and public universities.

15. • Combining the information obtained from the survey and the citation
information of the focal paper, we analyzed how research activities
correlates to the citations.
• In the following discussion, we used the percentage of top 10% highly
cited papers in all papers, hereafter we call it "Q-value," as a proxy of
the quality of the focal papers.
• Top 10% highly cited papers are determined by field and publication
year.
15
Citations and research activities
Citations and research activities

16. • The observation shows that the number of extramural funds correlate to
the “Q-value,” the understanding of casual relation would help policy
making and management people.
16
“Q-value” of the focal papers by combination of the
source of funds
Note: “Q-value” is the percentage of top 10% highly cited papers in all papers. Results of universities and PRIs.
Citations and research activities
Extramural funds improved quality
of research and resulted in the
high impact outputs
Researchers who can produce high
impact outputs got more
extramural funds
Combination of the source of funds Q-value
Weight in Top
10% highly cited
papers
01_Only intramural 3.4% 16.7%
02_Intramural+Extramural(1) 5.3% 32.3%
03_Intramural+Extramural(2) 7.0% 15.8%
04_Intramural+Extramural(3 or more) 9.2% 5.8%
05_Only extramural(1) 7.7% 16.7%
06_Only extramural(2) 9.3% 9.0%
07_Only extramural(3 or more) 14.4% 3.8%
Total 5.8% 100.0%

17. Participation of junior researchers Q-value
Weight in Top
10% highly cited
papers
No junior researchers (Only senior class) 4.9% 30.4%
With junior researchers 6.3% 69.6%
SC+Junior researchers (All types) 8.5% 2.7%
SC+Postdocs 8.4% 15.2%
SC+Postdocs+PhD students 7.9% 8.0%
Only junior researchers 6.3% 0.6%
SC+Postdocs+Bachelor/master's students 6.1% 2.9%
SC+PhD students 6.1% 19.6%
SC+Bachelor/master's students+PhD students 5.9% 6.9%
SC+Bachelor/master's students 4.5% 13.7%
Total 5.8% 100.0%
• “Q-value” of the focal papers is higher in research teams with junior
researchers compared with research teams without junior researchers.
• “Q-value” also depends on the type of junior researchers participated in
the research team.
17
“Q-value” of the focal papers by
composition of authors
Citations and research activities
Note: “SC” means senior class researcher. “Q-value” is the percentage of top 10% highly cited papers in all papers.
Results of universities and PRIs.

18. • From this survey, understanding of the process connecting inputs and
outputs in Japanese S&T system has advanced.
• In particular, this research revealed the fact that funds and teams
used for research activities differed among university groups and the
composition of funds and teams has been changing over time.
• Junior researchers play crucial role. Therefore, how to attract and
train junior researchers are crucial to preserve and strengthen
research capability both in Japanese universities and research
communities.
• The usage of competitive funds correlates with the “Q-value” of the
focal papers.
18
Summary
Summary

19. • However, there is a compensation between the quality and the
volume of scientific papers at national level.
• This effect is especially remarkable in the country like Japan where
the volume of the R&D expenditures shows moderate growth and the
balance of block fund and competitive fund has been changing.
• Considering the increasing dependence on competitive funds, how to
preserve continuity of research, especially start-up of research, is
important.
• In addition to this, difference in resource indicates the optimal
research management differs depending on the circumstance of
university.
19
Summary, cont.
Summary

20. • In the future, a more dynamic analysis of research activities is
necessary.
• Is there optimal balance between intramural and extramural funds?
• How changes in the source of funds affect the behavior of
researchers, resulting in changes in research activities in Japan.
• Research funding sources and research diversity.
• Understanding the influence of various policies on researcher’s
behavior.
• Distribution mechanism of research fund (individual, institution,
research community) and management of university.
• ...
20
Future works
Summary

21. SUPPLEMENTAL SLIDES
21

22. 22
Framework of the survey
Bibliographic information of the focal
papers
• Percentile of citation counts [top 10% highly
cited]
Citations counts as of the end of 2015 were
used. It takes time until citation counts
stabilize.
Database analyses
based on the Web of Science
Information about research activities
that produced the focal papers
• Corresponding author: Job title,
employment status, …
• Characteristics of research: Stage of
research, type of research, …
• Source of funds
• Composition of authors
Survey to corresponding authors
Focal papers
(Publication year 2004 - 2012)
Web of Science XML
(SCIE, As of the end of
2015)
Introduction

23. • The intramural funds and the KAKENHI are two major sources of funds in
all groups. The percentage of the extramural funds is higher in the
university groups with smaller publication share.
23
Percentage of the source of funds by university
group
Source of funds
28%
40%
47%
56%
58%
4%
3%
3%
45%
38%
32%
24%
26%
7%
4%
4%
5%
5%
7%
6%
5%
7%
7%
6%
6%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Other group
Intramural Extramural for organizations KAKENHI
MHLW JST NEDO
Private firms Other extramural
Intramural fund
Grants-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (KAKENHI)

24. • The percentage of research activities that only used the extramural funds
is higher in the university groups with larger publication share.
• About half of research activities used both of intramural and extramural
funds in all university groups.
24
Combination of the source of funds by university
group
Source of funds
13%
22%
27%
36%
39%
34%
36%
38%
35%
40%
16%
14%
15%
12%
9%
4%
4%
4%
4%
20%
15%
11%
8%
8%
11%
7%
4%
4%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Other group
01_Only intramural 02_Intramural+Extramural(1)
03_Intramural+Extramural(2) 04_Intramural+Extramural(3 or more)
05_Only extramural(1) 06_Only extramural(2)
07_Only extramural(3 or more)
+

25. • “Unknown because the intramural fund was allocated to group” has
been decreasing and “Intramural fund was not allocated because of the
contract” has been increasing over time in all job titles.
25
Allocation of the intramural funds by job title
Allocation of the intramural funds
Note: We asked about the amount of intramural funds and the job title in 2000, 2005, and 2013 to respondents who
were affiliated in university at that time.
30%
35%
41%
39%
48%
56%
47%
53%
63%
46%
50%
57%
5%
7%
10%
7%
7%
9%
6%
5%
7%
7%
8%
10%
65%
58%
49%
55%
44%
35%
47%
42%
29%
47%
42%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2000
2005
2013
2000
2005
2013
2000
2005
2013
2000
2005
2013
Group1Group2Group3Group4
Intramural fund was allocated
Intramural fund was not allocated because of the contract
Unknown because the intramural fund was allocated to group
• The percentage of “Intramural
fund was allocated” declined by
5 points in lecturers and
increased by 10 points in
associate professors in about 10
years.
65%
67%
67%
51%
52%
54%
33%
31%
28%
20%
23%
30%
3%
5%
4%
8%
9%
12%
21%
11%
15%
19%
33%
30%
27%
47%
44%
38%
58%
56%
51%
68%
62%
51%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2000
2005
2013
2000
2005
2013
2000
2005
2013
2000
2005
2013
Professors
Associate
professorsLecturers
Assistant
professors
Intramural fund was allocated
Intramural fund was not allocated because of the contract
Unknown because the intramural fund was allocated to group

26. 26
Amount of intramural funds by job title
(time series)
Note: We asked about the amount of intramural funds and the job title in 2000, 2005, and 2013 to respondents who
were affiliated in university at that time. 1 EUR = 130 JPY
• Median amount of research expense covered by the intramural funds
declined in almost all job classes. Professors of the national university
received about 8,000 euros in 2013 from the intramural funds.
(a) Amount of intramural funds in each fiscal year (Universities)
Median (Euro) 2000 2005 2013
Professor class 13,800 10,800 7,700
Associate professor class 7,700 6,200 4,600
Lecturer class 3,800 4,600 4,600
Assistant professor class 3,800 3,100 3,500
All class 7,700 7,700 6,200
(b) Amount of intramural funds in each fiscal year (National universities)
Median (Euro) 2000 2005 2013
Professor class 11,500 9,200 7,700
Associate professor class 6,900 6,200 4,600
Lecturer class 3,800 3,800 4,200
Assistant professor class 3,800 3,100 3,200
All class 7,700 6,900 6,200
Allocation of the intramural funds

27. 27
Combination of job titles of authors by university group
Composition of authors
• The percentage of research teams with junior researchers is around 70%
in the university groups 1, 2, and 3. The composition of junior
researchers is different by university group.
Note: Junior researchers: Bachelor/master's students, PhD students, and postdoctoral fellows. “SC” means senior class
researcher.
27%
25%
29%
41%
50%
16%
19%
23%
21%
21%
23%
26%
20%
17%
16%
8%
8%
10%
6%
5%
10%
8%
7%
7%
5%
3%
4%
3%
3%
9%
7%
6%
4%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Other group
No junior researchers (Only senior class) SC+Bachelor/master's students
SC+PhD students SC+Bachelor/master's students +PhD students
SC+Postdocs SC+Postdocs+Bachelor/master's students
SC+Postdocs+PhD students SC+Junior researchers(All types)
Only junior researchers
+