Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences

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.

A comprehensive analysis of acknowledgement texts in Web of Science: a case study on four scientific domains

Analysis of acknowledgments is particularly interesting as acknowledgments may give information not only about funding, but they are also able to reveal hidden contributions to authorship and the researcher’s collaboration patterns, context in which research was conducted, and specific aspects of the academic work. The focus of the present research is the analysis of a large sample of acknowledgement texts indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection. Record types “article” and “review” from four different scientific domains, namely social sciences, economics, oceanography and computer science, published from 2014 to 2019 in a scientific journal in English were considered. Six types of acknowledged entities, i.e., funding agency, grant number, individuals, university, corporation and miscellaneous, were extracted from the acknowledgement texts using a named entity recognition tagger and subsequently examined. A general analysis of the acknowledgement texts showed that indexing of funding information in WoS is incomplete. The analysis of the automatically extracted entities revealed differences and distinct patterns in the distribution of acknowledged entities of different types between different scientific domains. A strong association was found between acknowledged entity and scientific domain, and acknowledged entity and entity type. Only negligible correlation was found between the number of citations and the number of acknowledged entities. Generally, the number of words in the acknowledgement texts positively correlates with the number of acknowledged funding organizations, universities, individuals and miscellaneous entities. At the same time, acknowledgement texts with the larger number of sentences have more acknowledged individuals and miscellaneous categories.

Who funds the production of globally visible research in the Global South?

There exist large disparities globally when it comes to knowledge production with very small proportions of publications from the majority world penetrating the global science system. This paper examines the Scopus data on the funders of publications (co-)authored by individuals based in the Caucasus or Central Asia. The analysis shows that in the conditions of scarce local funding for research, research activity has been fuelled by international funding. The funding has been rather diverse and originated from 98 countries across North America, Europe, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Australia. The two countries most frequently mentioned in the funding acknowledgements are the United States and the Russian Federation, cumulatively accounting for approximately 20% of funding acknowledgements. Different types of organisations have funded globally visible research produced by authors based in the Caucasus and Central Asia, most notably bilateral agencies (68% of all funding acknowledgements), followed by philanthropies (7%), and multilateral organisations (5%). This paper offers evidence to question the viability of the narrative of North–South divisions in the global science system. While higher education and research are shaped within territorially bounded, self-contained, and discrete spaces of nation-states, the global science system rests on the extensive flows of funding and knowledge which extend well beyond the nation state.

Getting to the bottom of research funding: Acknowledging the complexity of funding dynamics

Research funding is an important factor for public science. Funding may affect which research topics get addressed, and what research outputs are produced. However, funding has often been studied simplistically, using top-down or system-led perspectives. Such approaches often restrict analysis to confined national funding landscapes or single funding organizations and instruments in isolation. This overlooks interlinkages, broader funding researchers might access, and trends of growing funding complexity. This paper instead frames a 'bottom-up' approach that analytically distinguishes between increasing levels of aggregation of funding instrument co-use. Funding of research outputs is selected as one way to test this approach, with levels traced via funding acknowledgements (FAs) in papers published 2009-18 by researchers affiliated to Denmark, the Netherlands or Norway, in two test research fields (Food Science, Renewable Energy Research). Three funding aggregation levels are delineated: at the bottom, 'funding configurations' of funding instruments co-used by individual researchers (from single-authored papers with two or more FAs); a middle, 'funding amalgamations' level, of instruments co-used by collaborating researchers (from multi-authored papers with two or more FAs); and a 'co-funding network' of instruments co-used across all researchers active in a research field (all papers with two or more FAs). All three levels are found to include heterogenous funding co-use from inside and outside the test countries. There is also co-funding variety in terms of instrument 'type' (public, private, university or non-profit) and 'origin' (domestic, foreign or supranational). Limitations of the approach are noted, as well as its applicability for future analyses not using paper FAs to address finer details of research funding dynamics.

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.

Acknowledgment of Libraries in the Journal Literature: An Exploratory Study

Purpose

This study examines acknowledgments to libraries in the journal literature, as well as the efficacy of using Web of Science (WoS) to locate general acknowledgment text.

Design/methodology/approach

This mixed-methods approach quantifies and characterizes acknowledgments to libraries in the journal literature. Using WoS's Funding Text field, the acknowledgments for six peer universities were identified and then characterized. The efficacy of using WoS to locate library acknowledgments was assessed by comparing the WoS Funding Text search results to the actual acknowledgment text found in the articles.

Findings

Acknowledgments to libraries were found in articles at all six peer universities, though the absolute and relative numbers were quite low (< 0.5%). Most of the library acknowledgments were for resources (collections, funding, etc.), and many were concentrated in natural history (e.g. zoology). Examination of Texas A&M University zoology articles found that 91.7% of the funding information came from “acknowledgments” and not specifically a funding acknowledgment section. The WoS Funding Text search found 56% of the library acknowledgments compared to a search of the actual acknowledgment text in the articles.

Research limitations

Limiting publications to journals, using a single truncated search term, and including only six research universities in the United States.

Practical implications

This study examined library acknowledgments, but the same approach could be applied to searches of other keywords, institutions/organizations, individuals, etc. While not specifically designed to search general acknowledgments, WoS's Funding Text field can be used as an exploratory tool to search acknowledgments beyond funding.

Originality/value

There are a few studies that have examined library acknowledgments in the scholarly literature, though to date none of those studies have examined the efficacy of using the WoS Funding Text field to locate those library acknowledgments within the journal literature.

Examining influential factors for acknowledgements classification using supervised learning

Acknowledgements have been examined as important elements in measuring the contributions to and intellectual debts of a scientific publication. Unlike previous studies that were limited in the scope of analysis and manual examination. The present study aimed to conduct the automatic classification of acknowledgements on a large scale of data. To this end, we first created a training dataset for acknowledgements classification by sampling the acknowledgements sections from the entire PubMed Central database. Second, we adopted various supervised learning algorithms to examine which algorithm performed best in what condition. In addition, we observed the factors affecting classification performance. We investigated the effects of the following three main aspects: classification algorithms, categories, and text representations. The CNN+Doc2Vec algorithm achieved the highest performance of 93.58% accuracy in the original dataset and 87.93% in the converted dataset. The experimental results indicated that the characteristics of categories and sentence patterns influenced the performance of classification. Most of the classifiers performed better on the categories of financial, peer interactive communication, and technical support compared to other classes.

Acknowledgements are not just thank you notes: A qualitative analysis of acknowledgements content in scientific articles and reviews published in 2015

Acknowledgements in scientific articles can be described as miscellaneous, their content ranging from pre-formulated financial disclosure statements to personal testimonies of gratitude. To improve understanding of the context and various uses of expressions found in acknowledgements, this study analyses their content qualitatively. The most frequent noun phrases from a Web of Science acknowledgements corpus were analysed to generate 13 categories. When 3,754 acknowledgement sentences were manually coded into the categories, three distinct axes emerged: the contributions, the disclaimers, and the authorial voice. Acknowledgements constitute a space where authors can detail the division of labour within collaborators of a research project. Results also show the importance of disclaimers as part of the current scholarly communication apparatus, an aspect which was not highlighted by previous analyses and typologies of acknowledgements. Alongside formal disclaimers and acknowledgements of various contributions, there seems to remain a need for a more personal space where the authors can speak for themselves, in their own name, on matters they judge worth mentioning.

Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices

Research studies, especially in the sciences, may benefit from substantial non-author support without which they could not be completed or published. The term “contributorship” was coined in 1997 to recognize all contributions to a research study, but its implementation (mostly in biomedical reports) has been limited to the inclusion of an “Author Contributions” statement that omits other contributions. To standardize the reporting of contributions across disciplines, irrespective of whether a given contribution merits authorship or acknowledgment, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) was launched in 2014. Our assessment, however, shows that in practice, CRediT is a detailed authorship classification that risks denying appropriate credit for persons who contribute as non-authors. To illustrate the shortcomings in CRediT and suggest improvements, in this article we review key concepts of authorship and contributorship and examine the range of non-author contributions that may (or may not) be acknowledged. We then briefly describe different types of editorial support provided by (non-author) translators, authors’ editors and writers, and explain why it is not always acknowledged. Finally, we propose two new CRediT taxa and revisions to three existing taxa regarding both technical and editorial support, as a small but important step to make credit attribution more transparent, accurate and open.

Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories

Authorship is the currency of an academic career for which the number of papers researchers publish demonstrates creativity, productivity, and impact. To discourage coercive authorship practices and inflated publication records, journals require authors to affirm and detail their intellectual contributions but this strategy has been unsuccessful as authorship lists continue to grow. Here, we surveyed close to 6000 of the top cited authors in all science categories with a list of 25 research activities that we adapted from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) authorship guidelines. Responses varied widely from individuals in the same discipline, same level of experience, and same geographic region. Most researchers agreed with the NIH criteria and grant authorship to individuals who draft the manuscript, analyze and interpret data, and propose ideas. However, thousands of the researchers also value supervision and contributing comments to the manuscript, whereas the NIH recommends discounting these activities when attributing authorship. People value the minutiae of research beyond writing and data reduction: researchers in the humanities value it less than those in pure and applied sciences; individuals from Far East Asia and Middle East and Northern Africa value these activities more than anglophones and northern Europeans. While developing national and international collaborations, researchers must recognize differences in peoples values while assigning authorship.