The funding factor: a cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact

Nobel laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine: relation between research funding and citations.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2907940/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

One of the vital problems in scientometrics is to explore the factors that affect the growth of citations in publications and in general the diffusion of knowledge in science and society. The goal of this study is to analyze the relation between funded and unfunded papers and citations of Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry and medicine over 2019-2020 period and the same relation in these research fields as a whole to clarify the scientific development. Original results here reveal that in chemistry and medicine, funded papers of Nobel Laureates have higher citations than unfunded papers, vice versa in physics that has high citations in unfunded papers. Instead, when overall research fields of physics, chemistry and medicine are analyzed, funded papers have a higher level of citations than unfunded, with a higher scaling factor in chemistry and medicine. General properties of this study are that: a) funded articles receive more citations than unfunded papers in research fields of physics, chemistry and medicine, generating a high Matthew effect given by a higher accumulation and growth of citations with the growth of papers, b) funding increases the citations of articles in fields oriented to applied research (such as, chemistry and medicine) more than fields oriented to basic research (physics). Overall, then, results here can explain some characteristics of scientific dynamics, showing the critical role of funding to foster citations and diffusion of knowledge, also having potential commercial implications in applied research. Results here can be provide useful information to understand drivers of the scientific development in basic and applied research fields to better allocate financial resources in research fields directed to support a positive scientific and societal impact.

Measuring the research funding landscape: a case study of BRICS nations

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine the funding ratio of BRICS nations in various research areas. The leading funding institutions that support research in the developing world have also been researched.

Design/methodology/approach

This study involves the funding acknowledgment analysis of the data retrieved from the “Clarivate Analytics' InCites database” under “22 specific research areas” to determine whether the publication was funded.

Findings

This study shows that China achieves the highest funding ratio of 88.6%, followed by Brazil (73.74%), Russia (72.93%) and South Africa (70.94%). However, India has the lowest funding ratio of 58.2%. For the subject areas, the highest funding ratio is by microbiology in Russia (86.6%), India (84.3%) and China (96.9%) and space science in Brazil (93.7%) and South Africa (94.82%). However, economics and business achieves the lowest funding ratio in Brazil (38.6%), India (20.1%) and South Africa (30.24%). Moreover, the regional funding agencies are the leading research sponsors in the BRICS nations.

Practical implications

This study implies increasing the funding ratio across various research areas, including arts, humanities and social sciences. The nations, particularly India, also need to gear up sponsoring the research to improve the funding ratio for scientific development, bringing overall good.

Originality/value

This study efforts to show the status of countries and research subjects in terms of funding ratio and reveals the prominent funders working toward scientific growth.

Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications

Academic research often draws on multiple funding sources. This paper investigates whether complementarity or substitutability emerges when different types of funding are used. Scholars have examined this phenomenon at the university and scientist levels, but not at the publication level. This gap is significant since acknowledgement sections in scientific papers indicate publications are often supported by multiple funding sources. To address this gap, we examine the extent to which different funding types are jointly used in publications, and to what extent certain combinations of funding are associated with higher academic impact (citation count). We focus on three types of funding accessed by UK-based researchers: national, international, and industry. The analysis builds on data extracted from all UK cancer-related publications in 2011, thus providing a 10-year citation window. Findings indicate that, although there is complementarity between national and international funding in terms of their co-occurrence (where these are acknowledged in the same publication), when we evaluate funding complementarity in relation to academic impact (we employ the supermodularity framework), we found no evidence of such a relationship. Rather, our results suggest substitutability between national and international funding. We also observe substitutability between international and industry funding.

Scientific laws of research funding to support citations and diffusion of knowledge in life science

One of the main problems in scientometrics is to explore the factors that affect the growth of citations in publications to identify best practices of research policy to increase the diffusion of scientific research and knowledge in science and society. The principal purpose of this study is to analyze how research funding affects the citation-based performance of scientific output in vital research fields of life science, which is a critical province (area of knowledge) in science to improve the wellbeing of people. This study uses data from the Scopus database in 2015 (to assess the impact on citations in 2021, after more than 5 years) concerning different disciplines of life science, given by “agricultural and biological sciences”, “biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology”, “Immunology and microbiology”, “neuroscience” and “pharmacology, toxicology and pharmaceutics”. Results demonstrate that although journals publish un-funded articles more than funded publications in all disciplines of life science, the fraction of total citations in funded papers is higher than the share in the total number of publications. In short, funded documents receive more citations than un-funded papers in all research fields of life science under study. Findings also support that citations of total (funded + un-funded), funded, and un-funded published papers have a power-law distribution in all five research fields of life science. Original results here reveal a general property in scientific development: funded research has a higher scaling potential than un-funded publications. Critical implications of research policy, systematized in a decision-making matrix, suggest that R&D investments in “Neuroscience” can generate a positive impact of scientific results in science and society-in terms of citations-higher than other research fields in medicine. Overall, then, results here can explain some characteristics driving scientific change and help policymakers and scholars to allocate resources towards research fields that facilitate the development and diffusion of scientific research and knowledge in life science for positive societal impact.

Estudio de la sección “agradecimientos” en una muestra de la Revista Española de Documentación Científica y de Scientometrics: evolución y autoridades

El presente trabajo analiza los agradecimientos hacia autoridades (personas e instituciones) incluidos en los artículos de dos revistas científicas, la Revista Española de Documentación Científica (REDC) y Scientometrics, para ver la evolución temporal que éstos han sufrido durante veiniún años en periodos alternos de cuatro años (1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014 y 2018) y estudiar su relación con la autoría/citación científica, y con los patrones de financiación de la Ciencia. Se analizan 1354 artículos, 717 de los cuales contienen agradecimientos que proporcionan un total de 2127 menciones. Los principales resultados indican que, aunque existe mayor tradición por incluir agradecimientos en sus artículos en Scientometrics, la revista española alcanza una Tasa de Variación en 2018 respecto a 1998 mucho mayor, lo que señala una evolución muy positiva por parte de la revista española; también reflejan que la práctica común en ambas revistas consiste en mencionar en los agradecimientos más a las personas que han ayudado en la investigación, y no tanto a las instituciones; y, por último, que existe una correlación positiva moderada entre el número de apariciones de los autores en los agradecimientos y su Índice h, por lo que sería posible utilizar los agradecimientos para medir la actividad científica.

Open Access Publishing Probabilities Based on Gender and Authorship Structures in Vietnam

Open access (OA) publishing is beneficial for researchers to improve recognition, representation, and visibility in academia. However, few studies have been conducted for studying the association between gender and OA publishing likelihood. Therefore, the current study explores the impacts of gender-based authorship structures on OA publishing in Vietnamese social sciences and humanities. Bayesian analysis was performed on a dataset of 3122 publications in social sciences and humanities. We found that publications with mixed-gender authorship were most likely to be published under Gold Access terms (26.31–31.65%). In contrast, the likelihood of publications with the solely male or female author(s) was lower. It is also notable that if female researcher(s) held the first-author position in an article of mixed-gender authorship, the publication would be less likely to be published under Gold Access terms (26.31% compared to 31.65% of male-first-author structure). In addition, publications written by a solo female author (14.19%) or a group of female authors (10.72%) had lower OA publishing probabilities than those written by a solely male author(s) (17.14%). These findings hint at the possible advantage of gender diversity and the disadvantage of gender homophily (especially female-only authorship) on OA publishing likelihood. Moreover, they show there might be some negative impacts of gender inequality on OA publishing. As a result, the notion of gender diversity, financial and policy supports are recommended to promote the open science movement.

The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science

Every year the National Institutes of Health allocates $10.7 billion (one-third of its funds) for clinical science research while the pharmaceutical companies spend $52.9 billion (90% of its annual budget). However, we know little about funder collaborations and the impact of collaboratively funded projects. As an initial effort towards this, we examine the co-funding network, where a funder represents a node and an edge signifies collaboration. Our core data include all papers that cite and receive citations by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, a prominent clinical review journal. We find that 65% of clinical papers have multiple funders and discover communities of funders that are formed by national boundaries and funding objectives. To quantify success in funding, we use a g-index metric that indicates efficiency of funders in supporting clinically relevant research. After controlling for authorship, we find that funders generally achieve higher success when collaborating than when solo-funding. We also find that as a funder, seeking multiple, direct connections with various disconnected funders may be more beneficial than being part of a densely interconnected network of co-funders. The results of this paper indicate that collaborations can potentially accelerate innovation, not only among authors but also funders.

Trends in funding research and international collaboration on greenhouse gas emissions: a bibliometric approach

The Web of Science Core Collection platform was used to withdraw the papers included in this study. The studied period comprised from inception till 2018. Trends in research, journals of publication, subject areas of research, keywords most frequently used, countries of publication, international collaboration, and trends of funding research were also analyzed. A total of 3902 articles were published, most of them (52.5%) during the five-year period 2014-2018. The area with the highest number of papers was environmental sciences (41%), followed by energy fuels (16.6%) and engineering environmental (15.7%). "Nitrous oxide emissions" was the most frequent word, followed by "Carbon dioxide emissions" and "Methane emissions". Other words that stood out were "Life cycle assessment", "Climate change" and "Environmental impacts". The United States was the country with the highest productivity (27.9%), followed by China (12.8%) and the United Kingdom (9.6%). There was a concentration of research in recent years, as more than 80% of the papers were published in the last 10 years. The journals that published the largest number of publications were devoted mainly to environmental studies (sciences and engineering), sustainable and green science and technology, energy and fuels, economics, and agriculture. Half of the works were published in Europe and the other half between North America and Asia. Two thirds of the works (67%) were financed compared to a third that were not financed. The percentage of funded works has been increasing over the last decade, which is seen as an indication of the importance of GHGE.

Funding acknowledgements in scientific publications: A literature review

The topic of acknowledgements has produced abundant research since the 1970s, though, as previous studies point out, the value of acknowledgements has not yet been demonstrated and further research is limited by lack of conceptualization. This study focuses on funding acknowledgements (FAs), considering that funding represents an important input in the scientific process. In this context, 183 scientific publications retrieved from Scopus from the 1970s until June 2020 were analyzed, with the aim of systematizing conceptually this body of research and contributing to a theory of acknowledgements. Results are summarized into the following main themes: the meaning of FAs; data sources for acknowledgements; the process of funding; association of funding with productivity, impact, and collaboration; and other aspects affected by funding. The literature reviewed shows that a theory of acknowledgements based on the reward triangle, as in previous studies, is unable to capture the extreme complexity of the scientific activity affecting and being affected by FAs. Funding bodies appear as clear and influential actors in the scientific communication system, making important decisions on the research that is supported, and influencing the type of knowledge produced. Funding agencies hold a responsibility regarding the data that they may collect on their programs, as well as the normalization policies they need to develop so that funded authors can reference with less ambiguity the financial source of their projects. Finally, the need to assess the impact of research funding beyond the scientific community that is, the societal impact, is also addressed.

Heterogeneous impacts of research grant funding

This paper seeks to examine whether there is heterogeneity in the impacts of research grant funding, by examining whether before–after differences in citation impact are related to the past performance of grantees. Analysis of the heterogeneity in funding impacts can potentially inform the selection of awardees and the design of funding instruments and application and assessment procedures. We examine the impacts of research project grants awarded over the period from 2005 to 2008 from the Danish Council for Independent Research. For the matched sample of grantees and rejected applicants, mean before–after differences are significantly greater for grantees than rejected applicants. However, results are more mixed when comparing overall distributions instead of mean values, where results are either not significant or weakly significant at the 10% level. This suggests that grants lead to strong results for some but are much less for the majority of grantees. The analysis finds indications that citation impact of research grants is positively related to past research performance, thus providing indications of heterogeneity in grant effects. Additional work could be very useful in further exploring possible systematic relationships between other applicant characteristics, such as years of experience as a researcher and overall publication activity, and subsequent impacts.

Nursing research on intimate partner violence in China: A scoping review

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health issue, and nurses have the potential to screen, navigate to interventions, and provide support, but responses to IPV differ greatly in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. We conducted a scoping review to examine the nursing literature on IPV in the above four regions in China. We conducted a comprehensive search of 11 Chinese and English databases from database inception to January 31, 2020, for eligible papers including empirical studies, reviews, reports, and expert opinion articles. We hand searched references lists and other studies published by the first and corresponding authors of included articles. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, and three reviewers cross-checked the extracted results. We also conducted quality appraisal for applicable empirical studies. A total of 58 Chinese-language and 63 English-language articles were included, 58 from Taiwan, 44 from Hong Kong, 13 from mainland China, and six from institutions outside China, but none from Macao. The quantitative and qualitative studies described the prevalence and complex nature of IPV, comparable to non-nursing and international studies. Nurse-led advocacy and Qigong (traditional Chinese mind-body health practice) interventions showed promise for improving mental health in women in Hong Kong. There was a low level of knowledge and preparedness to respond to IPV among Chinese nurses, especially in mainland China. Mixed methods studies in Hong Kong and Taiwan as complex designs were generally well-conducted. Nursing case reports from Taiwan uniquely supplemented the evidence base. In Hong Kong and Taiwan, varying designs were used to study various facets of IPV, targeting victims, nurses and other key stakeholders. In mainland China and Macao, IPV research was limited in quantity, quality, and diversity. As more research in the area of IPV is needed, factors influencing nursing research on IPV also merit investigation, while taking into consideration socio-economic-political-cultural factors.

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

The relationship between the distribution of research funding and scientific performance is a major discussion point in many science policy contexts. Do high shares of funding handed out to a limited number of elite scientists yield the most value for money, or is scientific progress better supported by allocating resources in smaller portions to more teams and individuals? In this review article, we seek to qualify discussions on the benefits and drawbacks of concentrating research funds on fewer individuals and groups. Based on an initial screening of 3,567 articles and a thorough examination of 92 papers, we present a condensation of central arguments. Further, we juxtapose key findings from 20 years of empirical research on the relation between the size of research grants and scientific performance. Overall, the review demonstrates a strong inclination toward arguments in favor of increased dispersal. A substantial body of empirical research also exhibits stagnant or diminishing returns to scale for the relationship between grant size and research performance. The findings question the rationale behind current funding trends and point toward more efficient ways to allocate resources. In addition, they highlight the need for more research on the interplay between science-internal mechanisms and policy priorities in accelerating concentration of funding.

Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups

The Momentum program launched in 2009 provides funding of up to 1 million Euro to establish new, independent research groups at Hungarian academic institutions. Here, our aim was to determine factors associated with the scientific output of these research groups. Publication data were downloaded from the Hungarian Scientific Work Archive (www.mtmt.hu), impact factor data were obtained from Thomson Reuters (jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com), and journal ranks were extracted from the Scimago Journal Rank database (www.scimagojr.com). Investigated input features for each grant holder include gender, degree, targeted category, international mobility, international grants, number of publications, total number of citations, H-index, best publications, impact factors in the last 2 years, and assessment scores provided by the experts. Evaluated performance indicators include cumulative impact factor, number of D1 publications, and number of first/last author D1 publications during the grant running time. Grant holders’ publication output increased by 23 and 52% for life sciences and material sciences researchers. Scientific performance was independent from gender, degree, international grants, category applied for, and citations received for the best pre-grant publication. Those with international mobility had significantly lower scientific output (yearly impact factor, number of D1 publications, number of first/last author publications). Scores received from grant review experts were independent from later publication activity. The strongest correlations were observed between scientific output and total number of citations, H-index, and impact factor in the last 2 years pre-grant. In summary, group leaders with a dynamic publication track record were able to attain the most additional momentum. Our results can help accelerate and improve future grant review processes.