Effects of funding on the collaboration and citation in environmental papers and the relationship with nation’s science and technology budgets

João Carlos Nabout; Ruan Carlos Pires Faquim; Rodrigo Assis Carvalho; Karine Borges Machado

doi:10.5327/Z217694781043

Autores

João Carlos Nabout Universidade Estadual de Goiás (UEG) - Brasil https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9102-3627
Ruan Carlos Pires Faquim Universidade Estadual de Goiás (UEG) - Brasil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7137-1197
Rodrigo Assis Carvalho Universidade Estadual de Goiás (UEG) - Brasil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2398-1935
Karine Borges Machado Universidade Estadual de Goiás (UEG) - Brasil https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2744-7964

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5327/Z217694781043

Palavras-chave:

número de autores; colaboração; citação; ciências ambientais; modelagem de equações estruturais.

Resumo

Dados de entrada (input), saída (output), impacto e processos são indicadores centrais da produção em Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. O input está associado aos investimentos realizados em ciência e tecnologia, podendo variar entre diferentes países e áreas científicas. Assim, o input pode influenciar outros indicadores de impacto. Aqui, avaliamos seu o efeito (número de financiamentos) sobre o processo de colaboração e o número de citações (output) da pesquisa ecológica. Além disso, detalhamos o efeito do número de financiamentos sobre a colaboração e o número de citações por país (baseado na nacionalidade dos autores). Verificamos que a maioria dos artigos publicados tinha algum grau de suporte financeiro, e que a produção de artigos com financiamento aumentou ao longo dos anos. O número de financiamentos teve efeito positivo na colaboração e nas citações, porém observamos que: nos países com maior investimento em ciência e tecnologia, o número de financiamentos impacta positivamente e diretamente a colaboração (número de autores); e nos países com menor investimento em ciência e tecnologia, o número de financiamentos impacta positivamente e diretamente as citações. Nossos resultados demonstram que os indicadores de impacto avaliados têm estrutura integrada e os efeitos em um nível podem afetar outros níveis. Entretanto, o impacto do número de fomentos nos indicadores informétricos pode variar entre os países, portanto esse resultado é importante para o desenvolvimento de políticas nacionais e para futuros estudos informétricos.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

Angelo, C., 2019. Brazil’s government freezes nearly half of its science spending. Nature, v. 568, 155-156.

Bag, S., 2015. A short review on structural equation modeling: applications and future research directions. Journal of Supply Chain Management Systems, v. 4, (3) 64-69.

Bai, X.; Zhang, F.; Lee, I., 2019. Predicting the citations of scholarly paper. Journal of Informetrics, v. 13, (1), 407-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.01.010.

Bar-Ilan, J., 2008. Review Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century – A review. Journal of Informetrics, v. 2, (1), 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001.

Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, v. 107, (2), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.; Wang, J., 2014. How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date? Journal of Informetrics, v. 8, (1), 175-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.11.005.

Bowen, A.; Casadevall, A., 2015. Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 112, (36), 11335-11340. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504955112.

Cimini, G.; Zaccaria, A.; Gabrielli, A., 2016. Investigating the interplay between fundamentals of national research systems: Performance, investments and international collaborations. Journal of Informetrics, v. 10, (1), 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.002.

Dranev, Y.; Kotsemir, M.; Syomin, B., 2018. Diversity of research publications: relation to agricultural productivity and possible implications for STI policy. Scientometrics, v. 116, (3), 1565-1587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2799-2.

Fan, Y.; Chen, J.; Shirkey, G.; John, R.; Wu, S. R.; Park, H.; Shao, C., 2016. Applications of structural equation modeling (SEM) in ecological studies: an updated review. Ecological Processes, v. 5, (1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-016-0063-3.

Fanelli, D., 2013. Positive results receive more citations, but only in some disciplines. Scientometrics, v. 94, (2), 701-709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0757-y.

Fortin, J.-M.; Currie, D.J., 2013. Big science vs. little science: how scientific impact scales with funding. Plos One, v. 8, (6), e65263. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065263.

Geisler, E. 2000. The metrics of science and Technology. Quorum Books, New York.

Gök, A.; Rigby, J.; Shapira, P., 2016. The impact of research funding on scientific outputs: Evidence from six smaller European countries. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 67, (3), 715-730. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23406.

Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, v. 6, (1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

Jacob, B.A.; Lefgren, L., 2011. The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, v. 95, (9-10), 1168-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.005.

Knief, U.; Forstmeier, W., 2021. Violating the normality assumption may be the lesser of two evils. Behavior Research Methods, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01587-5.

Lane, J.; Bertuzzi, S., 2011. Measuring the results of science investments. Science, v. 331, (6018), 678-680. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201865.

Lefcheck, J.S., 2016. Piecewise SEM: Piecewise structural equation modelling inr for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 7, (5), 573-579. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12512.

Leimu, R.; Koricheva, J. 2005a. Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience, v. 55, (5), 438-443. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0438:DSCITI]2.0.CO;2.

Leimu, R.; Koricheva, J., 2005b. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, v. 20, (1), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010.

Lewison, G.; Dawson, G., 1998. The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research. Scientometrics, v. 41, (1-2), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457963.

Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S., 2019. The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 70, (2), 198-201. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fasi.24109.

Makkonen, T., 2013. Government science and technology budgets in times of crisis. Research Policy, v. 42, (3), 817-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.002.

Manly, B.F., 2006. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology (Vol. 70). CRC Press, Boca Raton.

May, R.M., 1998. The scientific investments of nations. Science, v. 281, (5373), 49-51. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.281.5373.49.

Mejia, C.; Kajikawa, Y., 2018. Using acknowledgement data to characterize funding organizations by the types of research sponsored: The case of robotics research. Scientometrics, v. 114, (3), 883-904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2617-2.

Mena-Chalco, J.P.; Digiampietri, L.A.; Lopes, F.M.; Cesar Junior, R.M., 2014. Brazilian Bibliometric Coauthorship Networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 65, (7): 1424-1445. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23010.

Moed, H.F., 2017. Applied evaluative informetrics. Springer, Amsterdam.

Nabout, J.C.; Parreira, M.R.; Teresa, F.B.; Carneiro, F.M.; Cunha, H.F.; Souza Ondei, L.; Caramori, S.S.; Soares, T.N., 2015. Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): the trend from single-to multi-authorship in biological papers. Scientometrics, v. 102, 357-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1385-5.

Nabout, J.C.; Teresa, F.B.; Machado, K.B.; Prado, V.H.M.; Bini, L.M.; Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., 2018. Do traditional scientometric indicators predict social media activity on scientific knowledge? An analysis of the ecological literature. Scientometrics, v. 115, (2), 1007-1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2678-x.

Neff, M.W.; Corley, E.A., 2009. 35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics, v. 80, (3), 657-682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2099-3.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development – OECD. 2017. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: The digital transformation. OECD, Paris (Accessed December 1, 2019) at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264268821-en.

Ory, D.T.; Mokhtarian, P.L., 2010. The impact of non-normality, sample size and estimation technique on goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation modeling: evidence from ten empirical models of travel behavior. Quality & Quantity, v. 44, (3), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9215-6.

Padial, A.A.; Nabout, J.C.; Siqueira, T.; Bini, L.M.; Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., 2010. Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles. Scientometrics, v. 85, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0231-7.

Parreira, M.R.; Machado, K.B.; Logares, R.; Diniz-Filho, J.A.F.; Nabout, J.C., 2017. The roles of geographic distance and socioeconomic factors on international collaboration among ecologists. Scientometrics, v. 113, (3), 1539-1550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2502-z.

Paul-Hus, A.; Desrochers, N.; Costas, R., 2016. Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science. Scientometrics, v. 108, (1), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1953-y.

R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (Accessed September 19, 2017) at: https://www.R-project.org/.

Rigby, J., 2013. Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact? Scientometrics, v. 94, (1), 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0779-5.

Rosseel, Y., 2012. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, v. 48, (2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

Shaheen, F.; Ahmad, N.; Waqas, M.; Waheed, A.; Farooq, O., 2017. Structural equation modeling (SEM) in social sciences & medical research: a guide for improved analysis. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, v. 7, (5), 132-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i5/2882.

Sugimoto, C.R.; Robinson-García, N.; Murray, D.S.; Yegros-Yegros, A.; Costas, R.; Larivière, V., 2017. Scientists have most impact when they're free to move. Nature News, v. 550, (7674), 29-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/550029a.

Tahamtan, I.; Afshar, A. S.; Ahamdzadeh, K., 2016. Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, v. 107, (3), 1195-1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2.

Tang, L.; Hu, G.; Liu, W., 2017. Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 68, (3), 790-794. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23713.

Thomé, M.T.C.; Haddad, C.F.B., 2019. Brazil's biodiversity researchers need help. Science, v. 364, (6446), 1144-1145. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax9478.

Vanclay, J.K., 2013. Factors affecting citation rates in environmental science. Journal of Informetrics, v. 7, (2), 265-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.009.

Wang, X.; Liu, D.; Ding, K.; Wang, X., 2012. Science funding and research output: a study on 10 countries. Scientometrics, v. 91, (2), 591-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0576-6.

Web of Science. 2009. Funding Acknowledgements (Accessed December 5, 2017) at: http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/fundingsearch/.

Xia, J.; Myers, R.L.; Wilhoite, S.K., 2011. Multiple open access availability and citation impact. Journal of Information Science, v. 37, (1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0165551510389358.

Yan, E.J.; Wu, C.J.; Song, M., 2018. The funding factor: a cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact. Scientometrics, v. 115, (1), 369-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2583-8.

Yu, T.; Yu, G.; Li, P.Y.; Wang, L., 2014. Citation impact prediction for scientific papers using stepwise regression analysis. Scientometrics, v. 101, 1233-1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1279-6.

Zhao, S.X.; Lou, W.; Tan, A.M.; Yu, S., 2018. Do funded papers attract more usage? Scientometrics, v. 115, (1), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2662-5.