, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 805–825 | Cite as

What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain

  • Belén Álvarez-BornsteinEmail author
  • Adrián A. Díaz-Faes
  • María Bordons


Improving our knowledge about funding patterns in different research domains and how funding contributes to research is a matter of great interest for funders and policymakers. This paper aims to (a) compare the funding patterns of two biomedical domains that differ in their basic versus clinical nature, and (b) to elucidate the factors that influence the presence of funding. To do so, we draw on the scientific output of Spain-based researchers in the Virology (basic) and Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems (clinical) domains as covered by the Web of Science database. Funding rate, public versus private funding source, and national versus foreign origin of the funds are examined through an analysis of funding acknowledgements in published papers. The relationship between funding and different bibliometric indicators such as impact, collaboration, basic or clinical research level, and authors’ institutional sector is scrutinised. Funded studies tend to have higher impact and are more likely to have foreign partners, findings which are aligned with the objectives pursued by public funding agencies. Clinical research and research done in hospital settings are less likely to be funded. The likelihood of funding increases with the number of institutions in the clinical domain but not in the basic one. Although collaboration is fostered by public research agencies and funding may enhance the establishment of collaborative links among researchers, the likelihood of being funded does not always increase with the number of institutions, because other factors such as the type of institution and the clinical or basic nature of the research have a significant moderating effect.


Funding acknowledgements Scientific impact Scientific collaboration Biomedicine Research level Research funding 



We are grateful to the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) for funding research project CSO2014-57826-P, the pre-doctoral contract BES-2015-073537 awarded to B.A.B., and the Juan de la Cierva-Formación Postdoctoral Training grant awarded to A.A.D.F. We would like to thank the ACUTE team for its support with data processing, and Carmen Cabanillas for developing programs to manage funding data. We are also grateful to Rodrigo Costas for suggestions and to Kevin Boyack for kindly providing the data on research levels. Appreciation is expressed to K. Shashok for improving the use of English in the manuscript.


  1. Álvarez-Bornstein, B., Morillo, F., & Bordons, M. (2017). Funding acknowledgements in the Web of Science: Completeness and accuracy of collected data. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1793–1812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aström, F., Hedenfalk, I., Graffner, M. & Nilbert, M. (2013). Effects of research funding, gender and type of position on research collaboration networks: A micro-level study of cancer research at Lund University. In J. Gorraiz et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international-society-of-scientometrics-and-informetrics conference (ISSI). Vienna, Austria: Austrian Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  3. Beaudry, C., & Allaoui, S. (2012). Impact of public and private research funding on scientific production: the case of nanotechnology. Research Policy, 41(9), 1589–1606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begin-Caouette, O., Kalpazidou Schimidt, E., & Field, C. C. (2017). The perceived impact of four funding streams on academic research production in Nordic countries: The perspectives of system actors. Science and Public Policy, 44(6), 789–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bol, T., De Vaan, M., & de Rijt, Van. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. PNAS, 115(19), 4887–4890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., & Costas, R. (2013). Heterogeneity of collaboration and its relationship with research impact in a biomedical field. Scientometrics, 96, 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyack, K. W., & Jordan, P. (2011). Metrics associated with NIH funding: A high-level view. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18, 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyack, K. W., Patek, M., Ungar, L. H., Yoon, P., & Klavans, R. (2014). Classification of individual articles from all of science by research level. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists´ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, J., Tahhan, A. S., Georgiopoulou, V. V., Kelkar, A., Lee, M., Khan, B., et al. (2015). Trends in characteristics of cardiovascular clinical trials 2001–2012. American Heart Journal, 170(2), 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, D., Picard-Aitken, M., Côté, G., Caruso, J., Valentim, R., Edmonds, S., et al. (2010). Bibliometrics as a performance measurement tool for research evaluation: The case of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, B. Y., & Llorens, J. (2012). Investments in scientific research: Examining the funding threshold effects on scientific collaboration and variation by academic discipline. Policy Studies Journal, 40(4), 698–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costas, R., & Leeuwen, T. N. (2012). Approaching the “reward triangle”: General analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and “peer interactive communication” in scientific publications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1647–1661.Google Scholar
  15. De Granda-Orive, J., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Garcia-Rio, F., López-Padilla, D. E., Solano-Reina, S., Jiménez-Ruiz, C. A., et al. (2015). Global funding for papers of excellence on smoking, 2010–2014. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública-Pan american Journal of Public Health, 38(5), 410–417.Google Scholar
  16. Decker, R. S., Wimsalt, L., Trice, A. G. & Konstan, J. A. (2011). A profile of federal-grant administratative burden among federal demonstration partnership faculty. A Report of the Faculty Standing Committee of the Federal Demonstration Partnership.
  17. Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2016). How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors. Scientometrics, 106, 1093–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2016). The 2016 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  20. Fortin, J. M., & Currie, D. J. (2013). Big science versus little science: How scientific impact scale with funding. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e65263. Scholar
  21. Fundación Cotec para la Innovación. (2018). Informe Cotec 2018.
  22. Godin, B. (2003). The impact of research grants on the productivity and quality of scientific research. In INRS working paper.Google Scholar
  23. 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, 67, 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & DeRouen, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: Publication, collaboration and ‘‘periphery effects’’ in article citation rates of the New Zealand Crown Research Institutes 1995–2000. Scientometrics, 57(3), 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harter, S. P., & Hooten, P. A. (1990). Factors affecting funding and citation rates in information science publications. Library and Information Science Research, 10, 263–280.Google Scholar
  26. Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., et al. (2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76(1), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heffner, A. G. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2017). Fishing for complementarities: Research grants and research productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 51, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors []. (2017). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Accessed on 08 June 2018. Available from:
  30. Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of public economics, 95(9–10), 1168–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Langfeldt, L., Bloch, C. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2015). Options and limitations in measuring the impact of research grants- evidence from Denmark and Norway. Research Evaluation, 24, 256–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015). Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1323–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewison, G. (2003). The publication of cancer research papers in high impact journals. Aslib Proceedings, 55(5–6), 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewison, G., & Dawson, G. (1998). The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MINECO. (2013). Spanish plan for scientific and technical research and innovation. 2013–2016. Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad.
  38. Müller, R. (2012). Collaborating in life science research groups: The question of authorship. Higher Education Policy, 25(3), 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Narin, F., Pinski, G., & Gee, H. H. (1976). Structure of the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neufeld, J. (2016). Determining effects of individual research grants on publication ouput and impact: The case of the Emmy Noether Programme (German Research Foundation). Research Evaluation, 25(1), 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pao, M. L. (1991). On the relationship of funding and research publications. Scientometrics, 20(1), 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peritz, B. C. (1990). The citation impact of funded an unfunded research in economics. Scientometrics, 19(3–4), 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Diversity and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rey-Rocha, J., & López-Navarro, I. (2014). The fourth mission of hospitals and the role of researchers as innovation drivers in the public healthcare sector. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 37(1), e028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rigby, J. (2011). Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for publications: new dimensions and new controversies for research policy and evaluation. Research Evaluation, 20, 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandström, U. (2009). Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics, 79, 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schneider, J., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2014). Analysing robustness and uncertainty levels of bibliometric performance statistics supporting science policy. A case study evaluating Danish postdoctoral funding. Research Evaluation, 23(4), 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Toomela, A. (2007). Sometimes one is more than two: When collaboration inhibits knowledge construction. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41(2), 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ubfal, D., & Maffioli, A. (2011). The impact of funding on research collaboration: Evidence from a developing country. Research Policy, 40, 1269–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2011). Funding acknowledgement analysis: An enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 87, 563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2015). Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0117727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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, 115(1), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yegros-Yegros, A. & Costas, R. (2013). Analysis of the web of science funding acknowledgement information for the design of indicators on external funding attraction. In Proceedings of the 14th conference of the international society of scientometrics and informetrics, pp. 84–95.Google Scholar
  55. Zhao, D. (2010). Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: A case study of the library and information science field. Scientometrics, 84, 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Belén Álvarez-Bornstein
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Adrián A. Díaz-Faes
    • 2
  • María Bordons
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Philosophy (IFS), Centre for Humanities and Social Sciences (CCHS)Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)MadridSpain
  2. 2.INGENIO (CSIC-UPV)Universitat Politécnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Library and Information Science Department, Faculty of Library and Information SciencesComplutense University (UCM)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations