Measuring the funding landscape of COVID-19 research

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.

Thematic evolution of coronavirus disease: a longitudinal co-word analysis

Purpose

Using science mapping analysis approach and co-word analysis, the present study explores and visualizes research fields and thematic evolution of the coronavirus. Based on this method, one can get a picture of the real content of the themes in the mentioned thematic area and identify the main minor and emerging themes.

Design/methodology/approach

This study was conducted based on co-word science mapping analysis under a longitudinal study (from 1988 to 2020). The collection of documents in this study was further divided into three subperiods: 1988–1998, 1999–2009 and 2010–2020. In order to perform science mapping analysis based on co-word bibliographic networks, SciMAT was utilized as a bibliometric tool. Moreover, WoS, PubMed and Scopus bibliographic databases were used to download all records.

Findings

In this study, strategic diagrams were demonstrated for the coronavirus research for a chronological period to assess the most relevant themes. Each diagram depended on the sum of documents linked to each research topic. In the first period (1988–1998), the most centralizations were on virology and evaluation of coronavirus structure and its structural and nonstructural proteins. In the second period (1999–2009), with due attention to high population density in eastern Asia and the increasing number of people affected with the new generation of coronavirus (named severe acute respiratory syndrome virus or SARS virus), publications have been concentrated on “antiviral activity.” In the third period (2010–2020), there was a tendency to investigate clinical syndromes, and most of the publications and citations were about hot topics like “severe acute respiratory syndrome,” “coronavirus” and “respiratory tract disease.” Scientometric analysis of the field of coronavirus can be regarded as a roadmap for future research and policymaking in this important area.

Originality/value

The originality of this research can be considered in two ways. First, the strategic diagrams of coronavirus are drawn in four thematic areas including motor cluster, basic and transversal cluster, highly developed cluster and emerging and declining cluster. Second, COVID-19 is mentioned as a hot topic of research.