Funding ratios in social science: the perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences

Xu, Xin; Tan, Alice M.; Zhao, Star X.

doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1633-3

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As one might expect from WoS acknowledgment indexation—which, again, only includes acknowledgments if funding information is provided and if they are written in English—our results show that the proportion of papers with acknowledgments varies across disciplines, with a higher proportion of papers containing funding acknowledgments in the biomedical sciences (>80%), followed by the natural sciences (from 70% to 80%), clinical medicine (≅50%) and the social sciences (>30%). These results are in line with previous findings [ 2 , 25 , 29 , 45 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the past 50 years, acknowledgments have been studied as important paratextual traces of research practices, collaboration, and infrastructure in science. Since 2008, funding acknowledgments have been indexed by Web of Science, supporting large-scale analyses of research funding. Applying advanced linguistic methods as well as Correspondence Analysis to more than one million acknowledgments from research articles and reviews published in 2015, this paper aims to go beyond funding disclosure and study the main types of contributions found in acknowledgments on a large scale and through disciplinary comparisons. Our analysis shows that technical support is more frequently acknowledged by scholars in Chemistry, Physics and Engineering. Earth and Space, Professional Fields, and Social Sciences are more likely to acknowledge contributions from colleagues, editors, and reviewers, while Biology acknowledgments put more emphasis on logistics and fieldwork-related tasks. Conflicts of interest disclosures (or lack of thereof) are more frequently found in acknowledgments from Clinical Medicine, Health and, to a lesser extent, Psychology. These results demonstrate that acknowledgment practices truly do vary across disciplines and that this can lead to important further research beyond the sole interest in funding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, given vast inequalities in the amount of funding by discipline (e.g. that between the natural vs. social sciences) [42], requirements for funders to cover open access publishing costs may further exacerbate disciplinary gaps in research resourcessubsequently resulting in systemic biases in the kinds of knowledge freely available for public access. Additionally, paying open access fees may be a financial strain for funders who inherently have an interest in keeping research costs low [43], potentially resulting in restrictions on research funds which would ultimately impact patients and the public at large.…”

Section: Caveats and Counterpoints To Open Access For The Publicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public voices have largely been absent from the discussions about open access publishing in medical research. Yet the public have a strong interest in ensuring open access of medical research findings because of their roles as funders, advocates, research participants, and patients. By limiting access to research outputs, the current publishing system makes it more difficult for research to be held accountable to the public. Paywalls undermine the work of public advocacy, which requires open access in order to lobby for policy changes and research funding. Research participants generously give their time and energy to research studies with the assumption that the results will be broadly disseminated. Finally, members of the public have a stake in open access publishing as a resource for health information and decision-making. This commentary explores these crucial roles of the public in order to develop a public rationale for open access medical research. We outline a critique of the current academic publishing ecosystem, re-focus the open access debate from a public perspective, and respond to some of the arguments against public open access. Although open access to medical research is not a panacea, removing paywalls and other barriers to public access is essential. The public are critical stakeholders of medical research data.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, their concerns and warnings did not incur much attention. Many existing studies utilizing WoS FA information simply neglect these potential problems (Tan, Zhao, & Ye, ; Xu, Tan, & Zhao, ; Zhou & Tian, ). TO our knowledge, no studies to date have empirically examined the aforementioned problems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats

Tang

Liu

2016

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) began systematically collecting acknowledgment information in August 2008. Since then, bibliometric analysis of funding acknowledgment (FA) has been growing and has aroused intense interest and attention from both academia and policy makers. Examining the distribution of FA by citation index database, by language, and by acknowledgment type, we noted coverage limitations and potential biases in each analysis. We argue that despite its great value, bibliometric analysis of FA should be used with caution.

show abstract

Funding ratios in social science: the perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences

Cited by 25 publications

References 11 publications

Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences

Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences

Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing

Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About