Do funded papers attract more usage?

Research funding has been seen as one of the most important resource in the reward system of science. And usage of publications denotes an interesting perspective of user behavior in scientific communication. This study aims to address the relationship between funding and Usage Count, which is a new metrics item established on the platform of Web of Science. Full records of 300,010 articles published in 2013 were downloaded in October 2015, and divided into six disciplines, including information science library science, education educational research, economics, computer science, materials science, and chemistry. Seven indicators were proposed to measure the impact, including Funding rate, Citation per paper, Usage rate, Usage per paper, Citation difference, Usage difference, and Conversion rate. It concluded funding has impact on usage and citation, and funded papers attract more usage, but varying in different disciplines. Usage Count can be used in the extension of citation metrics but with limits. This study originally engages with usage metrics and detected that there is positive correlation between usage and funding.     

Impact of SERC's funding on research in chemical sciences

The paper assesses impact of Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) funding in chemical sciences during 1976–1989 using scientometric techniques. Other indicators like awards won, fellowship to prestigious academies, membership to editorial boards received by the project investigators, Ph.D. degrees awarded, collaborations established and new courses introduced due to SERC funding have also been analyzed. The study indicates that activity index of research out put in various frontier areas of chemical sciences have gone up despite a decrease in Indian activity index in these areas. The growth pattern of papers for “Organometallic and Organometalloidal Compounds” are similar for India and world. Contribution of SERC's project investigators in high impact factor (≥2) journals and the citations received by the papers published by them are higher than Indian contributions in chemical sciences. The SERC funding has resulted in a three fold increase in the number of Ph.D. degrees awarded in chemical sciences and SERC project investigators have won many prestigious awards, fellowship to academies and membership of the editorial board of the journals. The SERC funded research has also resulted in new courses at various universities.     

The public science base of US biotechnology: A citation-weighted approach

In previous research we examined the science base of US biotechnology utilizing several unique patent and scientific paper databases (McMillan et al., 2000). Our findings highlighted the importance of public science in this industry. In this current research effort, we extend that analysis to include the subsequent citations those biotechnology patents received. Our conclusions are that the reliance on public science is stable when adjusted for forward citations, but the impact of different funding sources does change when citation weights are added. The science policy implications of these findings and future research opportunities are discussed.     

An analysis of global research funding from subject field and funding agencies perspectives in the G9 countries

This study analyzed journal articles published by authors from the G9 countries (Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) to identify the distribution of research funding and funding agencies in these countries. A total of 5,856,744 articles published between 2009 and 2014 were collected from the Web of Science database. The results showed that China had the highest proportion of funded papers among its overall scientific output, while Italy had the lowest funded paper ratio. The leading sponsoring countries of papers by other countries were China and the United States, with China having a sponsorship surplus with all the other G9 countries, and the United States having a sponsorship surplus with seven other countries excepting China. Furthermore, governmental agencies were the major sponsors of funded papers in the G9 countries. The field of life sciences had the highest proportion of funded papers among the field’s total paper output; while natural sciences had the highest proportion of papers among all funded papers of a country. Regarding funding agencies, the top three funding agencies in each G9 country were primarily domestic agencies; and a large proportion of the funding provided by these agencies were granted to domestic research projects.     

Comparing the scientific quality achieved by funding instruments for single grant holders and for collaborative networks within a research system: Some observations

Increasingly, funding of academic research is carried out through the support of collaboration, rather than through single awards to a sole grant holder. The practice is well supported by evidence that larger, network-based research achieves high quality while leading to a number of capacity building benefits for the research system, although with significant transaction costs. However, the question of what kind of funding schemes should be made available to researchers is not a simple dichotomy between single grant-holder projects and networks. A key question is how to achieve a balance in each subject field between different forms of funding instrument employed while ensuring different forms of funding retain a reputation for generating research of high scientific quality. This paper reports the results of a systematic comparison of the scientific quality of 1010 scientific papers from the ISI database produced under two contrasting forms of funding instrument for a single year in the Austrian science system. Comparison of the arcsinh transformed citation counts of papers from the two main forms of funding for basic science at the level of main scientific field shows there is no statistically significant difference in the quality achieved by the two forms of funding. This may suggest that funders and research performers have succeeded in ensuring that different research instruments nevertheless achieve very similar levels of scientific excellence.     

Competition for funding as an indicator of research competitiveness

Summary Research quality is the cornerstone of modern science, it is used in the understanding of reputational differences among scientific and academic institutions. Traditionally, scientific activity is measured by a set of indicators and well-established bibliometric techniques based on the number of academic papers published in top-ranked journals or on the number of citations of these papers. These indicators are usually critical in measuring differences in research performance, both at individual and at scientific institutional levels. In this paper, we introduce an alternative and complementary set of indicators based on the results of competition for research funding, that aims to enlarge the framework in which research performance has traditionally been measured. Theoretical support for this paper is found in the role that the search for funding plays in the researchers’ credibility cycle as well as in peer review, the basic instrument for the allocation of public R&D funds. Our method analyses the outcomes of the researchers’ struggle for funding, using data from research proposal applications and awards, as the unit of observation, and aggregating them by research institutions to rank them in relative scales of research competitiveness.     

Effects of large-scale research funding programs: a Japanese case study

This study investigates the effects of large-scale research funding from the Japanese government on the research outcomes of university researchers. To evaluate the effects, we use the difference-in-differences estimator and measure research outcomes in terms of number of papers and citation counts per paper. Our analysis shows that the funding program led to an increase in the number of papers in some fields and an increase in the citation counts in the other fields. A comparison of our estimation results with assessment data obtained from peer reviews showed important differences. Since the characteristics of research vary according to the field, bibliometrics analysis should be used along with the peer review method for a more accurate analysis of research impact.     

Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience

There is a rich literature on how science and technology are related to each other. Patent citation analysis is amongst the most frequently used to tool to track the strengths of links. In this paper we explore the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Our observations indicate that patent-cited papers perform better in terms of standard bibliometric indicators than comparable publications that are not linked to technology in this way. More specifically, we found that articles cited in patents are more likely to be cited also by other papers. The share of highly cited papers is the most striking result. Instead of the average of 4% of all papers, 13.8% of the papers cited once or twice in patents fall into this category and even 23.5% of the papers more frequently cited in patents receive citation rates far above the standard. Our analyses further demonstrate the presence and the relevance of bandwagon effects driving the development of science and technology.     

Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009

This paper analyzes the relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations of computer science research activity. It analyzes the number of documents and citations and how they vary by number of authors. They are also analyzed (according to author set cardinality) under different circumstances, that is, when documents are written in different types of collaboration, when documents are published in different document types, when documents are published in different computer science subdisciplines, and, finally, when documents are published by journals with different impact factor quartiles. To investigate the above relationships, this paper analyzes the publications listed in the Web of Science and produced by active Spanish university professors between 2000 and 2009, working in the computer science field. Analyzing all documents, we show that the highest percentage of documents are published by three authors, whereas single-authored documents account for the lowest percentage. By number of citations, there is no positive association between the author cardinality and citation impact. Statistical tests show that documents written by two authors receive more citations per document and year than documents published by more authors. In contrast, results do not show statistically significant differences between documents published by two authors and one author. The research findings suggest that international collaboration results on average in publications with higher citation rates than national and institutional collaborations. We also find differences regarding citation rates between journals and conferences, across different computer science subdisciplines and journal quartiles as expected. Finally, our impression is that the collaborative level (number of authors per document) will increase in the coming years, and documents published by three or four authors will be the trend in computer science literature.     

On the relationship of funding and research publications

The impact of 17 year period of funding in schistosomiasis research on publication outcome was examined. Two productivity and three quality indicators were used to compare the output from the entire population of schistosomiasis in this period with those associated with 351 funded researchers. A substantially higher productivity and citation impact were found. This consistency of direction points to the positive effect of a period of sustained funding commitment.Dedicated to the memory of Michael J. MoravcsikThis publication is supported in part by a NIH grant RO1-LM-04680 from the National Library of Medicine.     

Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regression analysis

Researchers typically pay greater attention to scientific papers published within the last 2 years, and especially papers that may have great citation impact in the future. However, the accuracy of current citation impact prediction methods is still not satisfactory. This paper argues that objective features of scientific papers can make citation impact prediction relatively accurate. The external features of a paper, features of authors, features of the journal of publication, and features of citations are all considered in constructing a paper’s feature space. The stepwise multiple regression analysis is used to select appropriate features from the space and to build a regression model for explaining the relationship between citation impact and the chosen features. The validity of this model is also experimentally verified in the subject area of Information Science & Library Science. The results show that the regression model is effective within this subject.     

The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research

The Research Outputs Database (ROD) has been used to investigate the effects of different input variables, including the numbers of funding bodies, on the impact of research papers in a biomedical subfield (gastroenterology). This was determined by the medium-term impact of the journals in which they were published. It was shown that, when account was taken of the effects of the other input factors, the mean impact for a group of papers increased with the number of authors, the type of research (basic more than clinical), and with the number and identity of the funding bodies. However itdecreased slightly if there were more addresses; whether the paper was multinational had no significant effect. Previous work showing that multi-institution or multi-country papers are more highly cited reached this conclusion because it did not take into account the confounding effect of multiple funding sources, and possibly other factors.     

The use of citation speed to understand the effects of a multi-institutional science center

The extent to which an article attracts citations has long been of interest. However, recent research has emphasized not just the receipt but also the pacing of citation. Citation speed has been shown to be affected by journal prestige and self-citation but also public funding of research. Amidst these viewpoints, this paper explores the speed of article citation of a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary publicly funded research center relative to that of a comparison group of articles. Results indicate that articles by authors affiliated with the center are significantly more likely to have early-cited papers within the year of publication than the random comparison group, with controls by field also being significant. Implications for the ability of a publicly funded center to attract attention toward articles are discussed.     

A bibliometric analysis of NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research

Bibliometric analysis techniques are increasingly being used to analyze and evaluate scientific research produced by institutions and grant funding agencies. This article uses bibliometric methods to analyze journal articles funded by NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OER), an extramural grant-funding agency focused on the scientific exploration of the world’s oceans. OER-supported articles in this analysis were identified through grant reports, personal communication, and acknowledgement of OER support or grant numbers. The articles identified were analyzed to determine the number of publications and citations received per year, subject, and institution. The productivity and citation impact of institutions in the US receiving OER grant funding were mapped geographically. Word co-occurrence and bibliographic coupling networks were created and visualized to identify the research topics of OER-supported articles. Finally, article citation counts were evaluated by means of percentile ranks. This article demonstrates that bibliometric analysis can be useful for summarizing and evaluating the research performance of a grant funding agency.     

Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field

This paper reports on a bibliometric study of the characteristics and impact of research in the library and information science (LIS) field which was funded through research grant programs, and compares it with research that received no extra funding. Seven core LIS journals were examined to identify articles published in 1998 that acknowledge research grant funding. The distribution of these articles by various criteria (e.g., topic, affiliation, funding agency) was determined. Their impact as indicated by citation counts during 1998–2008 was evaluated against that of articles without acknowledging extra funding and published in the same journals in the same year using citation data collected from Scopus’ Citation Tracker. The impact of grant-funded research as measured by citation counts was substantially higher than that of other research, both overall and in each journal individually. Scholars from outside LIS core institutions contributed heavily to grant-funded research. The two highest-impact publications by far reported non-grant-based research, and grant-based funding of research reported in core LIS journals was biased towards the information retrieval (IR) area, particularly towards research on IR systems. The percentage of articles reporting grant-funded research was substantially higher in information-oriented journals than in library-focused ones.     

A deep-learning based citation count prediction model with paper metadata semantic features

Predicting the impact of academic papers can help scholars quickly identify the high-quality papers in the field. How to develop efficient predictive model for evaluating potential papers has attracted increasing attention in academia. Many studies have shown that early citations contribute to improving the performance of predicting the long-term impact of a paper. Besides early citations, some bibliometric features and altmetric features have also been explored for predicting the impact of academic papers. Furthermore, paper metadata text such as title, abstract and keyword contains valuable information which has effect on its citation count. However, present studies ignore the semantic information contained in the metadata text. In this paper, we propose a novel citation prediction model based on paper metadata text to predict the long-term citation count, and the core of our model is to obtain the semantic information from the metadata text. We use deep learning techniques to encode the metadata text, and then further extract high-level semantic features for learning the citation prediction task. We also integrate early citations for improving the prediction performance of the model. We show that our proposed model outperforms the state-of-the-art models in predicting the long-term citation count of the papers, and metadata semantic features are effective for improving the accuracy of the citation prediction models.

     

Using acknowledgement data to characterize funding organizations by the types of research sponsored: the case of robotics research

Funded research has been linked to academic production and performance. While the presence of funding acknowledgements may serve as an indicator of quality to some extent, we still lack tools to evaluate whether funding agencies allocate resources to novel and innovative research rather than mature fields. We address this issue in the present study by using bibliometrics. In particular, we exploit the citation network properties of academic articles to classify specific research fields into four categories: change maker, breakthrough, incremental, and matured. We then use funding acknowledgement information to identify the sponsors involved in each research type to characterize funding agencies. We focus our analysis on the robotics field in order to reveal international trends of financial acknowledgements. We find that the incremental and matured research areas show the highest counts of funding acknowledgements. Moreover, although research funded by some agencies is mostly recognized as incremental-type research, those in other categories may perform better in terms of the number of citations. Additionally, we analyze the interest of selected funding agencies in granular subject categories. The characterization of funding agencies in this study may help policymakers and funding organizations assess or adjust their strategies, benchmark with other key players, and obtain an overview of local and global acknowledgement trends.     

On the horns of a dilemma: does more funding for research lead to more research or a waste of resources that calls for optimization of researcher portfolios? An analysis using funding acknowledgement data

Increasing pressure on budgets of funding bodies has led to discussion of how to make financial resources go further, and to the concern that some researchers take more money from funding bodies for a particular project than needed, a practice that has been termed “double-dipping”. Some evidence has emerged that this might be occurring, and in this context of suddenly increased funding scarcity, albeit in a system with greater forms of support, a proposal has been made that funding bodies monitor and manage individual researcher portfolios to optimize resource use. Our paper provides evidence relevant to both the “double dipping” issue and the proposal to manage portfolios. We show that where certain pre-conditions for “double dipping” are met (i.e. when funding comes from more than organisation, and the organisations fund research in a very similar area), and where therefore an argument to monitor researcher portfolios might be applicable, the research produced under these conditions has greater citation impact. We query the claim that when more funding is acknowledged this is inherently undesirable and we express our doubts that subjecting the allocation of funding to researchers to a bureaucratic management process will necessarily increase the impact of research.     

Patents cited in the scientific literature: An exploratory study of 'reverse' citation relations

This paper reports on a new approach to study the linkage between science and technology. Unlike most contributions to this area we do not trace citations of scientific literature in patents but explore citations of patents in scientific literature. Our analysis is based on papers recorded in the 1996-2000 annual volumes of the CD-Edition of Science Citation Index (SCI) of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and patent data provided by the US Patent and Trademark Office. Almost 30,000 US patents were cited by scientific research papers. We analysed the citation links by scientific fields and technological sectors. Chemistry-related subfields tended to cite patents more than other scientific area. Among technological sectors, chemical clearly dominates followed by drugs and medical patents as the most frequently cited categories. Further analyses included a country-ranking based on inventor-addresses of the cited patents, a more detailed inspection of the ten most cited patents, and an analysis of class-field transfers. The paper concludes with the suggestions for future research. One of them is to compare our 'reverse' citation data with 'regular' patent citation data within the same classification system to see whether citations occur, irrespectively of their directionality, in the same fields of science and technology. Another question is as to how one should interpret reverse citation linkages.     

The citation advantage of foreign language references for Chinese social science papers

Contemporary scientific exchanges are international, yet language continues to be a persistent barrier to scientific communication, particularly for non-native English-speaking scholars. Since the ability to absorb knowledge has a strong impact on how researchers create new scientific knowledge, comprehensive access to and understanding of both domestic and international scientific publications is essential for scientific performance. This study explores the effect of absorbed knowledge on research impact by analyzing the relationship between the language diversity of cited references and the number of citations received by the citing paper. Chinese social sciences are taken as the research object, and the data, 950,302 papers published between 1998 and 2013 with 8,151,327 cited references, were collected from the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index. Results show that there is a stark increase in the consumption of foreign language material within the Chinese social science community, and English material accounts for the vast majority of this consumption. Papers with foreign language references receive significantly more citations than those without, and the citation advantage of these internationalized work holds when we control for characteristics of the citing papers, such as the discipline, prestige of journal, prestige of institution, and scientific collaboration. However, the citation advantage has decreased from 1998 to 2008, largely as an artifact of the increased number of papers citing foreign language material. After 2008, however, the decline of the citation advantage subsided and became relatively stable, which suggests that incorporating foreign language literature continues to increase scientific impact, even as the scientific community itself becomes increasingly international. However, internationalization is not without concerns: the work closes with a discussion of the potential problems associated with the lack of linguistic diversity in scientific communication.