Search results

To map UK biomedical research by analysing biomedical publications from authors with UK institutional affiliation and indexed in Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI).

Bibliometric methods to assess the volume of research published, its impact and sources of funding of biomedical research in the UK are used. The analyses also include an examination of national and international collaboration, leading regions and institutions (by volume of output), types of research carried out and its potential impact factor. This was done for all of biomedicine and 32 selected sub‐fields. The data used span 12 years, allowing changes and developments over time to be tracked.

The UK's position as the second largest producer of biomedical research is under threat from Japan and Germany and other countries with traditionally weaker biomedical research base. Strength in malaria and asthma research and relative weakness in surgery and renal medicine is notable. The profile of UK biomedical research has changed significantly in the period analysed, with a doubling of the level of international collaboration, a significant increase in basic research papers and an increase in the potential impact of UK publications. A relative decrease of acknowledgement of UK Government funding was noted, as were increased acknowledgements to UK not‐for‐profit and international organisations.

Bibliometric analyses can provide reliable tools in mapping the development of scholarly disciplines which can be of use, as demonstrated in this paper, in research policy, as well as in domain analysis in information science, library collection development or publishing.

Apart from policy applications, bibliometric research of this type can provide valuable information about changes in the patterns of scholarly communication within a domain (areas of interest in sociology of science and information science) and inform collection development policies in libraries and information centres (by describing literatures: ageing and obsolescence, volume and impact).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This study aims to highlight the growth and development of Indo-German collaborative research over the past three decades. Moreover, this study encompasses an in-depth examination of funding acknowledgements to gain valuable insights into the financial support that underpins these collaborative endeavours. Together with this paper, the authors provide an openly accessible data set of Indo-German research papers for further and reproducible research activities (the “Indo-German Literature Dataset”).

The data were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database from the year 1990 till the 30th of November 2022. A total of 36,999 records were retrieved against the used query. Acknowledged entities were extracted using a named entity recognition (NER) model specifically trained for this task. Interrelations between the extracted entities and scientific domains, lengths of acknowledgement texts, number of authors and affiliations, number of citations and gender of the first author, as well as collaboration patterns between Indian and German funders were examined.

The study reveals a consistent and increasing growth in the publication trend over the years. The study brings to light that Physics, Chemistry, Materials Science, Astronomy and Astrophysics and Engineering prominently dominate the Indo-German collaborative research. The USA, followed by England and France, are the most active collaborators in Indian and German research. Largely, research was funded by major German and Indian funding agencies, international corporations and German and American universities. Associations between the first author’s gender and acknowledged entity were observed. Additionally, relations between entity, entity type and scientific domain were discovered.

The study paves the way for enhanced collaboration, optimized resource utilization and societal advantages by offering a profound comprehension of the intricacies inherent in research partnerships between India and Germany. Implementation of the insights gleaned from this study holds the promise of cultivating a more resilient and influential collaborative research ecosystem between the two nations.

The study highlights a deeper understanding of the composition of the Indo-German collaborative research landscape of the past 30 years and its significance in advancing scientific knowledge and fostering international partnerships. Furthermore, the authors provide an open version of the original WoS data set. The Indo-German Literature Data set consists of 22,844 papers from OpenAlex and is available for related studies like literature studies and scientometrics.

To conduct an analysis of the bibliometric presence of a patient group, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, within its relevant biomedical sub‐field.

Publications in the multiple sclerosis sub‐field for 1988‐1999 in the Research Outputs Database constitute the data‐set. Proxy measures, based on funding acknowledgement counts, are used to analyse the bibliometric presence of the society in comparison with other leading agencies, focusing on visibility, research orientation and research impact. The results are discussed within the frame of an evolutionary economics of knowledge production and the larger policy debate concerning the public funding of science.

The society is the most frequently acknowledged funding agency and it distinguishes itself by the clustering of its acknowledgements in the area of clinical investigation. With a high and leading research impact, the society is considered an influential actor in the relevant biomedical sub‐field.

This paper fills a gap in the literature on the public funding of science by drawing attention to the important performance and presence of patient groups as funding agencies.

This study aims to examine the scholarly impact of funded and non-funded research published in ten core library and information science (LIS) journals published in 2016.

In total, ten high-impact LIS journals were selected using Google Scholar metrics. The source title of each selected journal was searched in the Scopus database to retrieve the articles published in 2016. The detailed information of all the retrieved articles for every journal was exported in a CSV Excel file, and after collecting all the journal articles’ information, all CSV Excel files were merged into a single MS Excel file for data analysis.

The study analyzed 1,064 publications and found that 14% of them were funded research articles. Funded articles received higher average citation counts (24.56) compared to non-funded articles (20.49). Funded open-access articles had a higher scholarly impact than funded closed-access articles. The research area with the most funded articles was “Bibliometrics,” which also received the highest number of citations (1,676) with an average citation count of 24.64. The National Natural Science Foundation of China funded the most papers (30), while the USA funded the highest number of research publications (36) in the field of LIS.

This study highlights the importance of securing funding, open access publishing, discipline-specific differences, diverse funding sources and aiming for higher citations. Researchers, practitioners and policymakers can use these findings to enhance research impact in LIS.

This study explores the impact of funding on research LIS and provides valuable insights into the intricate relationship between funding and research impact.

Academic citation and social attention measure different dimensions in the impact of research results. The authors quantify the contribution of funding to both indicators considering the differences attributable to the research field and access type.

Citation and social attention accumulated until the year 2021 of more than 367 thousand research articles published in the year 2018 are studied. The authors consider funding acknowledgments (FAs) in the research articles. The data source is Dimensions, and the units of study are research articles in the United Nation (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Most cited goals by researchers do not coincide with those that arouse greater social attention. A small proportion of articles accumulates a large part of the citations and most of the social attention. Both citation and social attention grow with funding. Thus, funded research has a greater probability of being cited in academic articles and mentioned in social media. Funded research receives on average two to three times more citations and 2.5 to 4.5 times more social attention than unfunded research. Moreover, the open access (OA) modalities gold and hybrid have the greatest advantages in citation and social attention due to funding.

Specific topics were studied in a specific period. Studying other topics and/or different time periods might result in different findings.

When funding to publish in open or hybrid access journals is not available, it is advisable to self-archiving the pre-print or post-print version in a freely accessible repository.

Although cautiously, it is also advisable to consider the social impact of the research to complement the scientific impact in the evaluation of the research.

The joint evaluation of the effect of both funding and OA on social attention.

A bibliometric profile of four information science journals is developed. Data on acknowledgements to funding sources, authors‘ nationalities and the citedness of published articles are analysed. The relationships among these variables are explored. Citedness appears to be associated with journal of publication and an author’s nationality, but not with funding.

The purpose of the study is to map the funding status of COVID-19 research. The various aspects, such as funding ratio, geographical distribution of funded articles, journals publishing funded research and institutions that sponsor the COVID-19 research are studied. To visualize the country collaboration network and research trends/hotspots in the field of COVID-19 funded research, keyword analysis is also performed. The open-access (OA) status of the funded research on COVID-19 is also discussed.

The leading indexing and abstracting database, i.e. Web of Science (WoS), was used to retrieve the funded articles published on the topic COVID-19. The scientometric approach, more particularly “funding acknowledgment analysis (FAA),” was used to study the research funding.

A total of 5,546 publications of varied nature have been published on COVID-19, of which 1,760 are funded, thus indicating a funding ratio of 32%. China is the leading producer of funded research (760, 43.182%) on COVID-19 followed by the USA (482, 27.386%), England (179, 10.17%), Italy (119, 6.761%), Germany (107, 6.08%) and Canada (107, 6.08%). China is also in lead in terms of the funding ratio (60.94%). However, the funding ratio of the USA (31.54%) is at 11th rank behind Canada (40.68%), Germany (34.18%) and England (35.87%). The USA occupies a central position in the collaboration network having the highest score of articles with other countries (n = 489), with the USA–China collaboration ranking first (n = 123). National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is the largest source of funding for COVID-19 research, supporting 342 (19.432%) publications, followed by the United States Department of Health Human Services (DHHS) and National Institute of Health (NIH), USA with 211 (11.989%) and 200 (11.364%) publications, respectively. However, China's National Key Research and Development Program achieves the highest citation impact (80.24) for its funded publications. Journal of Medical Virology, Science of the Total Environment and EuroSurveillance are the three most prolific journals publishing 63 (3.58%), 35 (1.989%) and 32 (1.818%), respectively, of the sponsored research articles on the COVID-19. A total of 3,138 institutions produce funded articles with Huazhong University of Science Technology and Wuhan University from China at the forefront publishing 92 (5.227%) and 83 (4.716%) publications, respectively. The funded research on COVID-19 is largely available in OA mode (1,674, 95.11%) and mainly through the Green and Bronze routes. The keyword clustering reveals that the articles mainly focus on the impact, structure and clinical characteristics of the virus.

The study's main limitation is that the results are based on the publications indexed by WoS, which has limited coverage compared to other databases. Moreover, all the funding agencies do not require or authors miss to acknowledge funding sources in their publications, which ultimately undermines the number of funded publications. The research publications on COVID-19 are also proliferating; thus, the study's findings shall be valid for a minimum period.

The funding of research on the COVID-19 is highly essential to accelerate innovative research and help countries fight against the global pandemic. The study's findings reflect the efforts made by nations and institutions to remove the financial and accessibility hurdles. It not only underscores the lead of the USA in the research on COVID-19, but also shows China as a forerunner in sponsoring the research, thus, helping to know the contribution of nations toward understanding the dynamics of pandemic and controlling it. The study will help healthcare practitioners and policymakers recognize the areas that remain the focus of sponsored research on COVID-19 and other left-out areas that need to be taken up and thus may help in policy formulation. It further highlights the impact of prolific funding agencies so that efforts may be initiated to increase the impact and thereby the returns of investment. The study can help to map the scientific structure of COVID-19 through the lens of funded research and recognize core inclinations of its development. Overall, a comprehensive analysis has been performed to present the detailed characteristics of sponsored research on emerging area of COVID-19, and it is informative, useful and one of its kind on the theme.

The study explores the funding support of research on COVID-19 and its other aspects, along with the mode of availability.

The study examines how the interactions among three prominent institutional logics—state, market and religion—fundamentally shape the patterns of individuals’ engagement in social entrepreneurship (SE).

The study develops a configurational theoretical framework and uses fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to test the hypotheses by gathering data on social ventures from 35 countries from the World Values Survey and Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.

The results show that the prevalence of social entrepreneurial ventures is enabled by different combinations of logics of action, governance mechanisms, strength of religious beliefs and religious pluralism.

This research reveals that the relationship between institutional logic profiles and SE is contingent on the coherence between different institutional logics.

Science is subject to a normative structure that includes how the contributions and interactions between scientists are rewarded. Authorship and citations have been the key elements within the reward system of science, whereas acknowledgements, despite being a well-established element in scholarly communication, have not received the same attention. The purpose of this paper is to put forward the bearing of acknowledgements in the humanities to bring to the foreground contributions and interactions that, otherwise, would remain invisible through traditional indicators of research performance.

The study provides a comprehensive framework to understanding acknowledgements as part of the reward system with a special focus on their value in the humanities as a reflection of intellectual indebtedness. The distinctive features of research in the humanities are outlined and the role of acknowledgements as a source of contributorship information is reviewed to support these assumptions.

“Peer interactive communication” is the prevailing support thanked in the acknowledgements of humanities, so the notion of acknowledgements as “super-citations” can make special sense in this area. Since single-authored papers still predominate as publishing pattern in this domain, the study of acknowledgements might help to understand social interactions and intellectual influences that lie behind a piece of research and are not visible through authorship.

Previous works have proposed and explored the prevailing acknowledgement types by domain. This paper focusses on the humanities to show the role of acknowledgements within the reward system and highlight publication patterns and inherent research features which make acknowledgements particularly interesting in the area as a reflection of the socio-cognitive structure of research.