Do funded papers attract more usage?

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.

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.

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.

Can usage be used for scholars’ evaluation in the construction of smart libraries?

Purpose

With the development of Web2.0 and publishing digitalization, traditional libraries and evaluation citation system can no longer indicate academic paper influence validly. Therefore, it is necessary to construct smart library and find the evaluation effect of Internet metrics-Usage.

Design/methodology/approach

This study puts forward four indexes of scholars’ evaluation based on Usage (total Usage (U), average Usage rate (U/N), hu-index and pu-index), which refer to citation indexes, takes the 35 high-output scholars in the field of library and information science in the WoS database as examples, analyzes performance of different scholars evaluation indexes based on Usage and compares the differences and correlations between “citation indicators” and “usage indicators.”

Findings

This study results show that pu-index is the strongest index to evaluate scholars. Second, there is a high correlation and strong mechanism based on time dependence and interactions between Usage and citation. Third, compared to “citation indicators”, the “usage indicators” has a larger numerical value and wider measurement range, which can break the time limitation of citation, and scientifically evaluate young scholars and newly published paper by scholars.

Originality/value

This paper proposes the pu-index – a relatively superior mathematical model for Usage and provides reference for the scholars’ evaluation policy of the smart library. This model can not only provide fair evaluation conditions for young scientists but also shorten the evaluation effect of the time lag of cited indicators. In addition, the “usage indicators” in this paper are new scientific evaluation indicators generated in the network environment. Applying it to the academic evaluation system will make the research papers widely accepted by the public and will also encourage scientists to follow the development of the Internet age and pursue research with equal emphasis on quantity and quality.

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.