Scientific grants are awarded almost exclusively on the basis of an independent peer review of a proposal submitted by the principal investigator (PI). The writing and reviewing of these applications consumes a significant amount of researchers’ time. Here, we perform a large-scale performance evaluation of review-based grant allocation via analysis of the grant proposals submitted to the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund.

In total, 42,905 scored review reports prepared for 13,303 proposals submitted between 2006 and 2015 were analyzed. The publication and citation characteristics of the PIs were obtained from the Hungarian Scientific Work Archive (www.mtmt.hu). Each publication was assigned to its respective SCImago Journal Rank category, and only publications in the first quarter (Q1) were considered. Citation, H-index and publication data were derived for each analyzed year for each researcher.

Of all proposals, 3455 were funded (26%). PIs with a funded proposal had significantly more Q1 articles and first/last authored Q1 articles (1.91 vs. 1.30, p<1e-16 and 0.82 vs 0.53, p<1e-16, respectively). Of the successful applications, those involving international collaborations and extended budget had higher publication output. Applicant age, grant duration, and submission year were not correlated with publication performance. Reviewer scores displayed a minor association (corr.coeff = 0.08-011) with the number of Q1 publications. International reviewers were significantly less efficient than national reviewers (p = 0.021). A strong correlation with output was observed for the scientometric characteristics of the applying PI at the time of submission, including H-index (corr.coeff = 0.45-0.54), independent citation (corr.coeff. = 0.46-0.62), and yearly average Q1 articles (corr.coeff = 0.63-0.79, p<1e-16). Similar correlations were observed for nonfunded applicants.

We performed a comprehensive evaluation of review-based resource allocation efficiency in basic research funding. Evidence suggests that the past scientometric performance of the principal investigator is the best predictor of future output.

几乎完全基于对主要研究者（PI）提交的提案的独立同行评审来授予科学赠款。这些应用程序的编写和审阅会占用大量研究人员的时间。在这里，我们通过分析提交给匈牙利科研基金的拨款提案，对基于审查的拨款分配进行了大规模的绩效评估。

总共分析了2006年至2015年期间为13,303份提案准备的42,905份评分评分报告。PI的出版和引文特征来自匈牙利科学工作档案（www.mtmt.hu）。每个出版物都被分配到其各自的SCImago Journal等级类别，并且仅考虑第一季度（Q1）中的出版物。每个研究人员每个分析年的引文，H指数和出版物数据。

在所有提案中，有3455个被资助（占26％）。具有资助提案的PI的Q1文章和第一/最后作者第一季度的文章明显更多（分别为1.91对1.30，p <1e-16和0.82对0.53，p <1e-16）。在成功的申请中，涉及国际合作和预算增加的申请的出版物产出更高。申请者的年龄，资助期限和提交年份与出版业绩无关。审阅者评分与Q1出版物数量之间存在较小关联（corr.coeff = 0.08-011）。国际审稿人的效率明显低于国家审稿人（p = 0.021）。在提交时，观察到的应用PI的科学计量特征与产出有很强的相关性，包括H指数（corr.coeff = 0.45-0.54），独立引用（corr.coeff。= 0.46-0）。62），以及每年平均第一季度的文章（corre.coeff = 0.63-0.79，p <1e-16）。对于没有经费的申请人也观察到类似的相关性。

我们对基础研究经费中基于审查的资源分配效率进行了全面评估。有证据表明，主要研究人员过去的科学计量学表现是未来产出的最佳预测指标。