Crowdfunding scientific research: Descriptive insights and correlates of funding success

PLoS ONE

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2019, Pages

  Sauermann, Henry ^a,b   Franzoni, Chiara ^c   Shafi, Kourosh ^d  

^a EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c School of Management   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; FUNDING; HUMAN; MALE; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIST; STUDENT; CROWDSOURCING; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; CROWDSOURCING; FUND RAISING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH;

EID: 85059443978     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208384     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Agrawal AK, Catalini C, Goldfarb A. Some simple economics of crowdfunding. In: Lerner J, Stern S, editors. Innovation Policy and the Economy. 14: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2014. p. 63–97.
2. Mollick E. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing. 2014; 29(1):1–16.
3. Bruton G, Khavul S, Siegel D, Wright M. New financial alternatives in seeding entrepreneurship: Microfi-nance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2015; 39 (1):9–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12143
4. Fleming L, Sorenson O. Financing by and for the Masses. California Management Review. 2016; 58 (2):5–19.
5. Lin T. Scientists turn to crowds on the web to finance their projects. New York Times. 2011 July 11, 2011.
6. Cha A. Crowdfunding propels scientific research. Washington Post. 2015 Jan. 18, 2015.
7. Siva N. Crowdfunding for medical research picks up pace. The Lancet. 2014; 384(9948):1085–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61661-5
8. Kessler S. Georgia Tech launches its own crowdfunding site for scientific research. Fastcompany. 2013 Sept. 4, 2013.
9. Sauermann H, Franzoni C. Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112(3):679–84.
10. Jeppesen LB, Lakhani K. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science. 2010; 21(5):1016–33.
11. Nielsen M. Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science: Princeton University Press; 2011.
12. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014; 111(16):5773–7.
13. Franzoni C, Sauermann H. Crowd Science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy. 2014; 43(1):1–20.
14. Colombo MG, Franzoni C, Rossi-Lamastra C. Cash from the crowd. Science. 2015; 348:1201–2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3832 PMID: 26068827
15. Chan CSR, Parhankangas A. Crowdfunding Innovative Ideas: How Incremental and Radical Innova-tiveness Influence Funding Outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2017; 41(2):237–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12268
16. Sturgis P, Allum N. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public understanding of science. 2004; 13(1):55–74.
17. Wheat RE, Wang Y, Byrnes JE, Ranganathan J. Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2013; 28(2):71–2.
18. Butticè V, Franzoni C, Rossi-Lamastra C, Rovelli P. The road to crowdfunding success: A review of extant literature. In: Afuah A, Tucci CL, Viscusi G, editors. Creating and Capturing Value Through Crowdsourcing: Oxford University Press; 2017.
19. Byrnes JE, Ranganathan J, Walker BL, Faulkes Z. To crowdfund research, scientists must build an audience for their work. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(12):e110329. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0110329 PMID: 25494306
20. McKenny AF, Allison TH, Ketchen DJ, Short JC, Ireland RD. How Should Crowdfunding Research Evolve? A Survey of the Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Editorial Board. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2017; 41(2):291–304.
21. Greenberg J, Mollick E. Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2017; 62(3):341–74.
22. Frydrych D, Bock AJ, Kinder T, Koeck B. Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding. Venture Capital. 2014; 16(3):247–69.
23. Colombo MG, Franzoni C, Rossi-Lamastra C. Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2015; 39(1):75–100.
24. Zheng H, Li D, Wu J, Xu Y. The role of multidimensional social capital in crowdfunding: A comparative study in China and US. Information & Management. 2014; 51(4):488–96.
25. Butticè V, Colombo MG, Wright M. Serial crowdfunding, social capital, and project success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2017; 41(2):183–207.
26. Agrawal A, Catalini C, Goldfarb A. Crowdfunding: Geography, social networks, and the timing of investment decisions. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. 2015; 24(2):253–74.
27. Sorenson O, Assenova V, Li G-C, Boada J, Fleming L. Expand innovation finance via crowdfunding. Science. 2016; 354(6319):1526–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf6989 PMID: 28008025
28. Skirnevskiy V, Bendig D, Brettel M. The influence of internal social capital on serial creators’ success in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2017; 41(2):209–36.
29. Pitschner S, Pitschner-Finn S. Non-profit differentials in crowd-based financing: Evidence from 50,000 campaigns. Economics Letters. 2014; 123(3):391–4.
30. Horvát E-A, Wachs J, Wang R, Hannák A. The role of novelty in securing investors for equity crowdfunding campaigns. HCOMP; 2018.
31. Parhankangas A, Renko M. Linguistic style and crowdfunding success among social and commercial entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing. 2017; 32(2):215–36.
32. Dushnitsky G, Marom D. Crowd monogamy. London Business School Review. 2013; 24(4):24–6.
33. Block J, Hornuf L, Moritz A. Which updates during an equity crowdfunding campaign increase crowd participation? Small Business Economics. 2018; 50(1):3–27.
34. Courtney C, Dutta S, Li Y. Resolving information asymmetry: Signaling, endorsement, and crowdfunding success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2017; 41(2):265–90.
35. Mohammadi A, Shafi K. Gender differences in the contribution patterns of equity-crowdfunding investors. Small Business Economics. 2018; 50(2):275–87.
36. Stephan P. How Economics Shapes Science: Harvard University Press; 2012.
37. Sauermann H, Stephan P. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science. 2013; 24(3):889–909.
38. Stokes D. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brook-ings Institution Press; 1997.
39. Wang J, Veugelers R, Stephan P. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of biblio-metric indicators. NBER Working Paper #22180. 2016.
40. Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. The RAND Journal of Economics. 2011; 42(3):527–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2011.00140.x
41. Experiment.com. Experiment.com researcher guide 2018. Available from: https://experiment.com/guide/.
42. Kickstarter. [Feb. 2018]. https://www.kickstarter.com/rules/prohibited
43. Lunden I. YouCaring acquires Generosity.com as Indiegogo pulls out of personal causes fundraising 2018 [July 29, 2018]. https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/25/youcaring-acquires-generosity-com-asindiegogo-pulls-out-of-personal-causes-fundraising/.
44. Loughran T, McDonald B. IPO first-day returns, offer price revisions, volatility, and form S-1 language. Journal of Financial Economics. 2013; 109(2):307–26.
45. Garcia D. Sentiment during recessions. The Journal of Finance. 2013; 68(3):1267–300.
46. Liu B, McConnell JJ. The role of the media in corporate governance: Do the media influence managers’ capital allocation decisions? Journal of Financial Economics. 2013; 110(1):1–17.
47. Stephen R. Understanding inverse document frequency: on theoretical arguments for IDF. Journal of Documentation. 2004; 60(5):503–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410410560582
48. Manning CD, Schütze H. Foundations of statistical natural language processing: MIT Press; 1999.
49. Austin J. Science writing and editing 2011 [Feb. 2018]. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2011/10/science-writing-and-editing.
50. Miklos A, Anderson V. Distribution of NIGMS R01 Award Sizes 2016. https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2016/05/distribution-of-nigms-r01-award-sizes/.
51. Finding a cure for Batten disease. https://experiment.com/projects/finding-a-cure-for-batten-disease.
52. Using nanoparticles to activate immune cells to fight tumors. https://experiment.com/projects/usingnanoparticles-to-activate-immune-cells-to-fight-tumors?s=discover.
53. National Science Foundation. Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Process. 2015.
54. National Institutes of Health. Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools 2016. https://report.nih.gov/success_rates/.
55. Marom D, Robb AM, Sade O. Gender dynamics in crowdfunding: Evidence on entrepreneurs, investors, deals, and taste-based discrimination. SSRN Working Paper. 2016.
56. Sauermann H, Haeussler C. Authorship and contribution disclosures. Science Advances. 2017; 3(11). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700404 PMID: 29152564
57. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986; 51(6):1173–82. PMID: 3806354
58. Jones BF, Weinberg BA. Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011; 108(47):18910–4.
59. Ley TJ, Hamilton BH. The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science. 2008; 322(5907):1472–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165878 PMID: 19056961
60. Ceci SJ, Williams WM. Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011; 108(8):3157–62.
61. Hui JS, Gerber EM. Crowdfunding science: Sharing research with an extended audience. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work; 2015: ACM.
62. Li F-W, Pryer KM. Crowdfunding the Azolla fern genome project: a grassroots approach. GigaScience. 2014; 3(1):16–9.
63. Kuppuswamy V, Bayus B. Crowdfunding creative ideas: The dynamics of project backers in Kickstarter. SSRN Working Paper. 2015.
64. Mollick E, Nanda R. Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Management Science. 2016; 62(6):1533–53. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2207
65. Wadman M. Firearms research: The gun fighter. Nature. 2013; 496(7446):412–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/496412a PMID: 23619673
66. Cha AE. Crowdfunding propels scientific research. The Washington Post. 2015.
67. Marshall J. Kickstart your research. PNAS. 2013; 110(13):4857–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1303517110 PMID: 23533268
68. Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft. Lab for Open Innovation in Science (LOIS). http://www.openinnovationinscience.at/lois-en.html.
69. Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, et al. Next steps for Citizen Science. Science. 2014; 343(6178):1436–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251554 PMID: 24675940
70. Vohland K, Sauermann H, Antoniou V, Balaz B, Goebel C, Karatzas K, et al. Citizen Science and sustainability transitions. Working Paper. 2018.
71. Merton RK. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973.