Funding acknowledgements in scientific publications: A literature review

Abstract

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.

Open Science Indicators as Metadata Fields?

“…In 2008, WoS began a systematic collection of FA data on funding text (FX), funding source (FO), and grant number (GN). In 2013, Scopus followed suit and began recording funding source (FUND-SPONSOR), funding source acronym (FUND-ACR), grant number (FUND-NO), and aggregated funding information (FUND-ALL) ( Alvarez-Bornstein and Montesi, 2021 ). The inclusion of FA in these two mega-databases significantly expanded the vista of evaluative scientometric studies.…”

“…In the 2010s, Díaz-Faes and Bordons ( Diaz-Faes and Bordons., 2014 ) referred to FA indexation as a rich source of information and proposed systematic inclusion for the future. Since then, this new bibliographic field has gone through several further iterations, as is expected in such cases, under the scrutiny of the expert community ( Alvarez-Bornstein and Montesi, 2021 ; Paul-Hus et al, 2016 ). Its evolution, however, is not limited to the expert community, as major funding bodies are increasingly mandating recognition of their contributions.…”

“Formal and informal networkedness among German Academics”: exploring the role of conferences and co-publications in scientific performance

“…In addition to such simulations, several empirical studies have corroborated the benefits of connectivity, primarily on the basis of co-publication activities (Angere & Erik, 2017). Further research has drawn on information related to funding acknowledgements and to peer interactive communication (subauthorship), often arriving at similar conclusions (Álvarez-Bornstein & Bordons, 2021;Álvarez & Caregnato, 2021;Álvarez-Bornstein & Montesi, 2020;Díaz-Faes & Bordons, 2017;Costas & van Leeuwen, 2012).…”

The availability and completeness of open funder metadata: Case study for publications funded by the Dutch Research Council

“…In 2008 Web of Science (WoS) was the first to systematically start collecting funding text, funding organization and grant numbers. Five years later followed by Scopus (Álvarez-Bornstein & Montesi, 2021). More recently, Digital Science launched Dimensions, the paid version of which seems to be explicitly developed for the market of funding organizations seeking insight into the outputs of their grants.…”

“…They aim to provide information on the connections between publications, awarded grants, data sets and other outputs from the larger research life cycle (Herzog et al, 2020). There is a large body of literature trying to assess the completeness of these databases (Grassano et al, 2017;Álvarez-Bornstein & Montesi, 2021;Liu et al, 2020).…”