Scientometric assessment of funded scientometrics and bibliometrics research (2011–2021) | Scientometrics Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Scientometric assessment of funded scientometrics and bibliometrics research (2011–2021)

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A scientometric analysis of funded scientometric and bibliometric research from 2011 to 2021 is presented in this paper. Using Web of Science, we analyzed 2810 domain-relevant papers (DRP) and 1040 methodologically relevant papers (MRP). A number of standard scientometric parameters have been examined in the study, including the relative growth rate (RGR), the doubling time (DT), the activity index (AI), the average citations per paper (ACCP), and the h-index. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the parameters associated with the most productive funding agencies, international country collaboration patterns, top journals, most productive institutions, trends in the field, as well as emerging themes. In this paper, we analyze scientometric and bibliometric research funding by nature of study, which is the first study of its kind.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Aagaard, K., Mongeon, P., Ramos-Vielba, I., & Thomas, D. A. (2021). Getting to the bottom of research funding: Acknowledging the complexity of funding dynamics. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayoubi, C., Pezzoni, M., & Visentin, F. (2021). Does it pay to do novel science? The selectivity patterns in science funding. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 635–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barahona, I., Hernández, D. M., Pérez-Villarreal, H. H., & Del Pilar Martínez-Ruíz, M. (2018). Identifying research topics in marketing science along the past decade: A content analysis. Scientometrics, 117(1), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2851-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, A., Pizzi, S., Pellegrini, M. M., & Dabić, M. (2021). Digitalization and business models: Where are we going? A science map of the field. Journal of Business Research, 123, 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D. (1981). The analysis of scientometric matrices for policy implications. Scientometrics, 3(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02021863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrukh, M., Meng, F., Wu, Y., & Nawaz, K. (2020). Twenty-eight years of business strategy and the environment research: A bibliometric analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2572–2582. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Footman, K., Chersich, M., Blaauw, D., Campbell, O. M., Dhana, A., Kavanagh, J., et al. (2014). A systematic mapping of funders of maternal health intervention research 2000–2012. Globalization and Health, 10(1), 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-014-0072-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J. P., Su, C., Wang, H. Y., Zhai, L. H., & Pan, Y. T. (2019). Research fund evaluation based on academic publication output analysis: The case of Chinese research fund evaluation. Scientometrics, 119, 959–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C. (2012). Extramural research grants and scientists’ funding strategies: Beggars cannot be choosers? Research Policy, 41, 1448–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. H., & Huang, M. J. (2018). An analysis of global research funding from subject field and fundingagencies perspectives in the G9 countries. Scientometrics, 115, 833–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Zhang, Y., Youtie, J., Porter, A. L., & Wang, X. (2016). How does national scientific funding support emerging interdisciplinary research: A comparison study of big data research in the US and China. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0154509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, Q., Chen, H., Wang, X., Ma, T., & Xiong, F. (2022). Exploring funding patterns with word embedding-enhanced organization–topic networks: A case study on big data. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04253-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karki, M. M. S., & Garg, K. C. (1997). Bibliometrics of alkaloid chemistry research in India. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 37(2), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci960032z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokol, P., & Vosner, H. B. (2018). Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed coverage of funding information in medical journal articles. Journal of Medical Library Association, 106(1), 81–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W. (2020). Accuracy of funding information in Scopus: A comparative case study. Scientometrics, 124, 803–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., Hu, G., Tang, L., & Wang, Y. (2015). China’s global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013). Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., Tang, L., & Hu, G. (2020). Funding information in Web of Science: An updated overview. Scientometrics, 122, 1509–1524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manesh, M., Pellegrini, M. M., Marzi, G., & Dabic, M. (2021). Knowledge management in the fourth industrial revolution: Mapping the literature and scoping future avenues. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2963489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mejia, C., & Kajikawa, Y. (2018). Using acknowledgement data to characterize funding organizations by the types of research sponsored: The case of robotics research. Scientometrics, 114, 883–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller, T., Schmidt, M., & Hornbostel, S. (2016). Assessing the effects of the German Excellence Initiative with bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2217–2239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2090-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., & Toschi, L. (2021). The impact of public funding on science valorisation: An analysis of the ERC Proof-of-Concept Programme. Research Policy, 50, 104211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, K. S. (2015). The state of case study approach in mergers and acquisitions literature: A bibliometric analysis. Future Business Journal, 1, 13–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5–6), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shueb, S., Gul, S., Nisa, N. T., Shabir, T., Ur Rehman, S., & Hussain, A. (2022). Measuring the funding landscape of COVID-19 research. Library Hi Tech, 40(2), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-04-2021-0136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahlman, G. R., & Heidorn, P. B. (2020). Mapping the “long tail” of research funding: A topic analysis of NSF grant proposals in the division of astronomical sciences. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57, e276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, L., Hu, G., & Liu, W. (2017). Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68, 790–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. F., & Walker, C. K. (2015). A descriptive and historical review of bibliometrics with applications to medical sciences. Pharmacotherapy, 35(6), 551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Lee, Y. N., & Walsh, J. P. (2018). Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects. Research Policy, 47, 1070–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin, C., & Rainer, A. (2022). Is it a case study?: A critical analysis and guidance. Journal of Systems and Software, 192(10), 111395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., Tan, A. M., & Zhao, S. X. (2015). Funding ratios in social science: The perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences. Scientometrics, 104(3), 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1633-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, R. Y., Li, X. L., Liang, Z. S., & Li, D. Y. (2019). Development strategy and collaboration preference in S&T of enterprises based on funded papers: A case study of Google. Scientometrics, 121, 323–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, S. X., Lou, W., Tan, A. M., & Yu, S. (2018). Do funded papers attract more usage? Scientometrics, 115, 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Tian, H. (2014). Funded collaboration research in mathematics in China. Scientometrics, 99, 695–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, R., Liu, M., Su, Y., Meng, X., Han, S., & Duan, Z. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of publication of funded studies in nursing research from Web of Science, 2008–2018. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(1), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14578

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding support was received for the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Library and Information Science, Mizoram University, Aizwal, India

    Manoj Kumar Verma

  2. Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

    Daud Khan

  3. Rajarshi Janak Central Library, Central University of South Bihar, Gaya, India

    Mayank Yuvaraj

Authors
  1. Manoj Kumar Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daud Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mayank Yuvaraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have substantial contributions to the conception of the work. Initial drafting of the work was done by MY; the remaining authors did critical revisions and completed the manuscript. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors read and approved the final draft of the manuscript and are aware that this paper is submitting to this journal.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mayank Yuvaraj.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verma, M.K., Khan, D. & Yuvaraj, M. Scientometric assessment of funded scientometrics and bibliometrics research (2011–2021). Scientometrics 128, 4305–4320 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04767-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04767-6

Keywords