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).

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.

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.

To provide an empirical contribution to analyse the dynamics of research groups in knowledge production in an interdisciplinary research field in two scientifically peripheral countries (Colombia and Brazil).

This dynamic is analysed in the interdisciplinary area of immunology through a comparative study of Brazilian and Colombian research groups. The practices of publication, collaborative links and patterns of acknowledgements provided the framework for this study. Quantitative and qualitative tools were used; in particular a bibliometric study was complemented with information derived from semi‐structured interviews with members of the research communities selected.

The bibliometric study allowed the construction of some indicators: channels of publication, impact of the research outputs, citations and patterns of collaboration. Also, a database with acknowledgements was created to identify the different actors who take part in the process of knowledge production. These indicators, interpreted in the light of qualitative analysis, throw considerable light on how the different groups work on the cognitive and social aspects of knowledge production.

This study is limited to 31 leading research groups from Colombia and Brazil.

This paper starts to redress the situation of a lack of empirical studies in developing countries in the use of acknowledgements as a tool to examine formal and informal scientific collaboration and as indicator of accountability to funding bodies. This work provides an empirical contribution to policy‐makers and scientific communities in the task of understanding the dynamics of knowledge production in an interdisciplinary area combining different approaches.

The study showcases the social impact (online attention) of funded research compared to nonfunded for the BRICS nations. The key themes achieving online attention across the funded and nonfunded publications have also been identified.

A total of 1,507,931 articles published across the BRICS nations for a period of three (03) years were downloaded from the Clarivate Analytics' InCites database of Web of Science (WoS). “Funding Acknowledgement Analysis (FAA)” was used to identify the funded and nonfunded publications. The altmetric score of the top highly cited (1%) publications was gauged from the largest altmetric data provider, “Altmetric.com”, using the DOI of each publication. One-way ANOVA test was used to know the impact of funding on the mentions (altmetrics) across different data sources covered by Altmetric.com. The highly predominant keywords (hotspots) have been mapped using bibliometric software, “VOSviewer”.

The mentions across all the altmetric sources for funded research are higher compared to nonfunded research for all nations. It indicates the altmetric advantage for funded research, as funded publications are more discussed, tweeted, shared and have more readers and citations; thus, acquiring more social impact/online attention compared to nonfunded publications. The difference in means for funded and nonfunded publications varies across various altmetric sources and nations. Further, the authors’ keyword analysis reveals the prominence of the respective nation names in publications of the BRICS.

The study showcases the utility of indexing the funding information and whether research funding increases social impact return (online attention). It presents altmetrics as an important impact assessment and evaluation framework indicator, adding one more dimension to the research performance. The linking of funding information with the altmetric score can be used to assess the online attention and multi-flavoured impact of a particular funding programme and source/agency of a nation so that necessary strategies would be framed to improve the reach and impact of funded research. It identifies countries that achieve significant online attention for their funded publications compared to nonfunded ones, along with the key themes that can be utilised to frame research and investment plans.

The study represents the social impact of funded research compared to nonfunded across the BRICS nations.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on examining the research impact of papers written with and without funding. Specifically, the citation analysis method is used to compare the general and funded papers published in two leading international conferences, which are ACM SIGIR and ACM SIGKDD.

The authors investigate the number of general and funded papers to see whether the number of funded papers is larger than the number of general papers. In addition, the total citations and the number of highly cited papers with and without funding are also compared.

The analysis results of ACM SIGIR papers show that in most cases the number of funded papers is larger than the number of general papers. Moreover, the total captions, the average number of citations per paper, and the number of highly cited papers all reveal the superiority of funded papers over general papers. However, the findings are somewhat different for the ACM SIGKDD papers. This may be because ACM SIGIR began much earlier than ACM SIGKDD, which relates to the maturity of the research problems addressed in these two conferences.

The value of this paper is the first attempt at examining the research impact of general and funded research papers by the citation analysis method. The research impact of other research areas can be further investigated by other analysis methods.