A senior professor once said to me,
you expect one (top-ranked) journal paper for every $120,000 in funding.
I’ve always assumed it was an unverifiable figure but I’m interested to find out if work has been done.
Obviously this figure will differ for fields, funders, and your definition of top-ranked. My question is: Are there any meta studies that have looked at this funding versus quality issue?
Caveat: I’m aware that ‘quality’ of science is something that we all agree can’t be measured. But people do measure it. And I’d like to know if those people have produced any work looking at quality per unit funding and the circumstances that improve the ratio.