Scientists and funding bodies are interdependent actors involved in an ongoing two-way signalling interaction; however, we lack insight on the social mechanisms underpinning this interaction. To address this issue, we examine how successfully funded scientists interpret and address criteria set by the funding body to maximise their chances of funding success. We also consider the possible adverse side effects that can arise from scientists’ competitive efforts to address these criteria. Our findings identify a portfolio of funding criteria—research feasibility, research alignment and team credentials—that scientists address when preparing grant applications. Effectively addressing these criteria enhances the prospects of funding success and value creation. However, we also find that scientists can over-address funding criteria, which is counterproductive and yields undesirable side effects. Our research therefore makes an important distinction between the possibilities for value creation and the value creation frictions that can unintentionally arise based on how grant-submitting scientists interpret and address the criteria signalled by the funding body. Our research has implications for policymakers, funding bodies and scientists which we also discuss.

科学家和资助机构是相互依赖的参与者，参与持续的双向信号相互作用；然而，我们缺乏对支撑这种相互作用的社会机制的深入了解。为了解决这个问题，我们研究了成功资助的科学家如何解释和满足资助机构设定的标准，以最大限度地提高资助成功的机会。我们还考虑了科学家为满足这些标准而进行的竞争性努力可能产生的不利副作用。我们的研究结果确定了科学家在准备资助申请时需要考虑的一系列资助标准——研究可行性、研究一致性和团队资质。有效地满足这些标准可以增强融资成功和价值创造的前景。然而，我们也发现科学家可能会过度考虑资助标准，这会适得其反并产生不良的副作用。因此，我们的研究对价值创造的可能性和价值创造摩擦进行了重要区分，这些摩擦可能基于提交资助的科学家如何解释和处理资助机构提出的标准而无意中产生。我们的研究对政策制定者、资助机构和科学家具有影响，我们也对此进行了讨论。