Search results

In this paper, an analysis is presented of the research funding towards nanotechnology at the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and its relationship to the research output in Nanoscope, an application area of nanotechnology.

The paper analyzes the data collected from 1997 till 2006 and derives a definitive time lag between the allocation of research funds and issued patents and published journals. This assessment is achieved by identifying growth trends in patents, funds and publications and doing a curve‐fit analysis using the Fisher‐Pry model. Linear regression analysis is used to show the correlation between the funding and research outputs. Alongside, non‐linear programming objective function optimization technique is used to derive the time lag in years for each of the research outputs from the year of funds granted.

This paper demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between research funding and different research outputs. The time lag between funding and patents issued is evident from the patent trend analysis and Bibliometric analysis. In the case of Nanoscope, the patent time lag was found to be approximately five to six years, for journal article it was approximately two to three years and conference presentations happened right after the funding. The research outputs showed similar trends and were found to be interdependent as evident from our mathematical analysis.

While this study has shown that lag times exist within the chosen example of Nanoscope, and furthermore can be calculated to a precise degree, further data points in terms of additional emerging technologies would support the hypothesis in a more general term. A future study can look at developing technology roadmaps of the future based on the funding happening today.

The work takes bibliometric analysis to a further intelligence and establishes key linkages between these indicators.

In the era of the knowledge economy, universities are expected to contribute to the economic development of their countries. Therefore, their research agendas must be relevant to the local context and geared, though not uncritically, to the national educational agenda. To do this diligently requires research autonomy. However, due to the low government investment in research on the African continent, universities have had to rely on other sources of funding, which usually come with strings attached. Our study investigates the case of Ghana, in particular, the University of Ghana, the leading research university in the country. We drew on resource dependence theory, which suggests that, despite external pressures on universities, they can enhance their autonomy through the implementation of strategic measures. Primarily, we analyzed documents such as research reports, journal articles and speeches in the light of Clark’s (1998) model of the “entrepreneurial university,” which, if adapted with care and in a localized form in Ghana, may contribute to the research autonomy of its universities. We found that, although research autonomy in Ghanaian universities is limited due to their over-reliance on external donor funding, it is likely to be strengthened if the government of Ghana follows through on plans to increase research funding and universities continue with measures to diversify their funding sources.

This chapter traces the history of digital libraries (DLs) in the United States through the funding sources that have supported DL research and development over the past decade and a half. A set of related questions are addressed: How have the mission and goals of funding agencies affected the types of projects that have been funded? What have been the deliverables from funded projects and how have the goals of the funding agencies shaped those deliverables? Funding agencies have exerted strong influence over research and development in DLs, and different funding agencies have funded different types of projects, with varying sets of concerns for driving the various fields that feed into DLs. This chapter will address the impact that DL funding has had on the development of research in the field of Library and Information Science, as well as on the practice of librarianship.

Traditional studies in the sociology of science have highlighted the self-organized character of the academic community. This article focuses on recent interrelated changes that alter that distinctive governance structure and its related patterns of competition and cooperation. The changes that we identify here are contractualization and large-scale cooperative research. We use different data sources to exemplify these new patterns and discuss the illustrative role of research clusters in German academia. Research clusters as funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) are both a highly prestigious scarce good in the competition for reputation and resources and a means of fostering cooperation. Our analysis of this German example reveals that this new institutional configuration of universities as organizations, academic researchers, and the state has a profound effect on organizational practices. We discuss the implications of our empirical findings with regard to collegiality in academia. Ultimately, we anticipate a further weakening of collegial bonds, not only because universities and the state have become more active in shaping the nature of academic competition and cooperation but also because of the increasing strategic and individualistic orientation of academic researchers. In the final section, we summarize our findings and address the need for further research and an international comparative perspective.

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.

This paper aims to shed light on the linkage between research and development (R&D) networks and public funding presented in a given period by using network-based evaluation tools as a means of exploring the relational dimension in public projects designed to foster technology R&D activities.

This research uses co-occurrence network analysis of relevant public projects to assess how technological associations might occur within the R&D activities of given publicly funded projects as well as conducts correlation analysis to understand the extent to which linkages of R&D activity in technology fields are related to public expenditure.

Core technology fields, regarded as eligible to receive continued public funding, are critical for enhancing competitiveness and sustainable growth at the nationally strategic technology level. Thus, the relationship between R&D and the level of government funding for these fields is generally perceived as strong. However, a few technology fields, which did not actively form specific network relationships with other technology fields, are considered to exceptionally drive the largest government support. This trend indicates that the government-funded R&D should be designed and managed not only to curb the inefficiencies existing in the current funding programs but also to achieve the appropriateness for further technology development.

Despite the comprehensive findings, this study has several limitations. First, it is difficult to control any confounding factors, such as the determinants and constraints of the government budget allocation and expenditure decisions over S&T areas, strategic frameworks for public investment and evolving policy landscapes in technology sectors, which lead to bias in the study results. Second, this study is based on a narrow, single-year data set of a specific field of projects supported by the Korean government’s R&D program. Therefore, the generalization of findings may be limited. The authors assumed that influences caused by confounding variables during the initial phase of the public funding schemes would not be significant, but they did not take into account possible factors that might arise coincident with the subsequent phase changes. As such, the issue of confounding variables needs to be carefully considered in research design to provide alternative explanations for the results that have been ruled out. The limitations of this study, therefore, could be overcome by comparing the outcome difference between subsidized and non-subsidized R&D projects or evaluating targeted funding schemes or tax incentives that support and promote various areas of R&D with sufficiently large, evidence-based data sets. Also, future research must identify and analyze the R&D activities concerning public support programs performed in other countries associated with strategic priorities to provide more profound insight into how they differ. Third, there are some drawbacks to using these principal investigators-provided classification codes, such as subjectivity, inaccuracy and non-representation. These limitations may be addressed by using content-based representations of the projects rather than using pre-defined codes. Finally, the role that government investment in R&D has played in developing new science and manufacturing technologies of materials and components through network relationships could be better examined using longitudinal analysis. Furthermore, the findings suggest the need for further research to integrate econometric models of performance outcomes such as input–output relations into the network analysis for analyzing the flow of resources and activities between R&D sectors in a national economy. Therefore, future research would be helpful in developing a methodological strategy that could analyze temporal trends in the identification of the effects of public funding on the performance of R&D activity and demand.

Public funding schemes and their intended R&D relationships still depend on a framework to generate the right circumstances for leading and promoting coordinated R&D activities while strengthening research capacity to enhance the competitiveness of technologies. Each technology field has a relatively important role in R&D development that should be effectively managed and supervised to accomplish its intended goals of R&D budgeting. Thus, when designing and managing R&D funding schemes and strategy-driven R&D relations, potential benefits and costs of using resources from each technology field should be defined and measured. In this regard, government-funded R&D activities should be designed to develop or accommodate a coordinated program evaluation, to be able to examine the extent to which public funding is achieving its objectives of fostering R&D networks, balancing the purpose of government funding against the needs of researchers and technology sectors. In this sense, the examination of public R&D relations provides a platform for discussion of relational network structures characterizing R&D activities, the strategic direction and priorities for budget allocation of the R&D projects. It also indicates the methodological basis for addressing the impact of public funding for R&D activities on the overall performance of technology fields.

The value of this work lies in a preliminary exploratory analysis that provides a high-level snapshot of the areas of metallurgy, polymers/chemistry/fibers and ceramics, funded by the Korean Government in 2016 to promote technological competitiveness by encouraging industries to maintain and expand their competencies.

Proper topic selection is an essential prerequisite for the success of research. To study this, this article proposes an important concerned factor of topic selection-topic popularity, to examine the relationship between topic selection and team performance.

The authors adopt extracted entities on the type of gene/protein, which are used as proxies as topics, to keep track of the development of topic popularity. The decision tree model is used to classify the ascending phase and descending phase of entity popularity based on the temporal trend of entity occurrence frequency. Through comparing various dimensions of team performance – academic performance, research funding, relationship between performance and funding and corresponding author's influence at different phases of topic popularity – the relationship between the selected phase of topic popularity and academic performance of research teams can be explored.

First, topic popularity can impact team performance in the academic productivity and their research work's academic influence. Second, topic popularity can affect the quantity and amount of research funding received by teams. Third, topic popularity can impact the promotion effect of funding on team performance. Fourth, topic popularity can impact the influence of the corresponding author on team performance.

This is a new attempt to conduct team-oriented analysis on the relationship between topic selection and academic performance. Through understanding relationships amongst topic popularity, team performance and research funding, the study would be valuable for researchers and policy makers to conduct reasonable decision making on topic selection.

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.

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.