When career-boosting is on the line: Equity and inequality in grant evaluation, productivity, and the educational backgrounds of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions individual fellows in social sciences and humanities

Prestigious academic scholarships are highly competitive, so using appropriate evaluation criteria is important. In this study, we analyzed 259 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) grantees in social sciences and humanities to see their composition in terms of productivity, educational background, mobility, and gender. Based on quantitative content analysis, linear regressions, and network analyses, the findings reveal that while most grantees significantly improved in their production after funding, there are many awardees with weak or even invisible publication records on Scopus both prior to and following their awards. Most of the scholars who had already been prolific prior to their grant continued to be productive after funding, while many awardees with weak past performances were even less productive after winning the scholarship. In terms of gender, we found no Matilda effect in the grant allocation process; while in terms of production, male scholars benefit more from the grant than females. The outcomes also show that Western countries dominate both the awardees’ education trajectories and their host institutions. Our conclusion is that the geographic diversity among the awardees should be developed and that the evaluation process should focus on pre-MSCA performance to support the most promising applicants.