Abstract: The fairness and rationality in the selection of funding recipients and the allocation process are key considerations for policymakers in formulating research fund policies. Investigating the institutional concentration of funded research outcomes and its relationship with impact contributes to better optimization and allocation of research resources. This paper takes the field of humanities and social sciences as an example, using SSCI and CSSCI journal article data from universities to conduct a comparative analysis of the concentration differences between funded and non-funded research papers. It explores the Matthew effect of research output under funding and its relationship with impact. The research results show that the concentration of SSCI papers in the humanities and social sciences is higher than that of CSSCI papers. However, the Matthew effect of funded research output is generally weakening, and the gap in concentration between funded and non-funded papers is narrowing. The concentration of funded SSCI international journal papers shows a certain negative correlation with citation rates, as is the case for papers funded by the National Natural Science Foundation. However, the opposite is true for funded CSSCI papers and papers funded by the National Social Science Foundation. The findings of this study offer important insights for optimizing funding policies, rationally allocating research funds, and enhancing the international influence of academic research in the humanities and social sciences.

摘要： 资助对象选取与经费分配过程中的公平性与合理性是科研基金政策制定者重点考虑的问题，对资助成果的机构集中度及其与影响力的关系进行研究有助于更好地实现科研资源优化配置。本文以人文社会科学领域为例，利用高校的SSCI和CSSCI期刊论文数据，比较分析了该领域的科研基金资助论文与未受资助论文的集中度差异，探究了基金资助科研产出的马太效应及其与影响力的关系。研究结果显示：人文社科领域SSCI的论文集中度比CSSCI更高，但基金资助科研产出的马太效应总体在减弱，且资助论文与未受资助论文的集中度差距在缩小；基金资助的SSCI国际期刊论文集中度与被引率呈现一定负相关性，国自科基金论文亦如此，但受资助的CSSCI论文和国社科基金论文则相反。本研究结论对优化基金资助政策、合理分配资助经费和提升人文社科领域学术研究的国际话语权有重要启示。