Abstract
Funding is vital for the survival of science and thereby development and sovereignty of a country and should look to the quality of the product. This paper looks at funding citations in Incites® database by Brazilian authors. Almost 70% of the documents in this study were funded by one of 10 Brazilian agencies, mainly Capes, CNPq and FAPESP. Although federal agencies (Capes and Cnpq) are important nationwide, the funding agency from São Paulo state (FAPESP) was seen to have national impact, probably due to collaboration of researchers from other states with universities in São Paulo. The impact of these agencies was lower than when science was funded by foreign sources, which were mainly North American and European. Eighty companies (primarily manufacturing and pharmaceutical) were also seen to fund research in Brazil, none being national. Clusters were formed of co-funding foreign agencies using quality indicators. Cluster separation depended mainly on journal impact factor, open/closed access and % documents in Q1 journals. Using Capes data, citation rates are also low, which may account for 30% of papers nationwide without funding information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We would suggest to the journals, that they provide pull down menus with names of the financing agencies, as the data base has agencies with up to 200 different spellings and even incorrect names (p.ex Capes is called a Council while it is a Coordination).
We would suggest to the journals, that they provide pull down menus with names of the financing agencies, as the data base has agencies with up to 200 different spellings and even incorrect names (p.ex Capes is called a Council while it is a Coordination).
References
Amigo, I. (2019). In Brazil, thousands of research fellowships are at risk. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/in-brazil–thousands-of-research-fellowships-are-at-risk-66302.
Angelo, C. (2019). Brazil’s government freezes nearly half of its science spending. Nature, 568, 155–156. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01079-9.
Arbix, G., Salerno, M. S., Amaral, G., & Lins, L. M. (2017). Brazilian innovation policies: Advances, misconception, and instability. CEBRAP, 36, 9–27. https://doi.org/10.25091/s0101-3300201700030002.
Betarelli Junior, A. A., Faria, W. R., Montenegro, R. L. G., Bahia, D. S., & Gonçalves, E. (2020). Research and development, productive structure and economic effects: Assessing the role of public financing in Brazil. Economic Modelling, 90, 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.04.017.
Blind, K., Pohlisch, J., & Zi, A. (2018). Publishing, patenting, and standardisation: Motives and barriers of scientists. Research Policy, 47, 1185–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.011.
Carvalho, S. B. R., & Araújo, G. C. (2020). Gestão da internacionalização das instituições de ensino superior. Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior (Campinas), 25(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1414-40772020000100007.
Coccia, M., Falavigna, G., & Manello, A. (2015). The impact of hybrid public and market-oriented financing mechanisms on the scientific portfolio and performances of public research labs: A scientometric analysis. Scientometrics, 2015(102), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1427-z.
Cross, D., Thomson, S., & Sinclair, A. (2017). Research in Brazil: A report for CAPES by clarivate analytics. Philadelphia: Clarivate Analystics.
Davidovich, L. (2017). Financiamento em crise. Pesquisa FAPESP. 256.
Giebe, T., Grebe, T., & Wolfstetter, E. (2006). How to allocate R&D (and other) subsidies: An experimentally tested policy recommendation. Research Policy, 35, 1261–1272.
Gielfi, G. G., Furtado, A., & Tijessen, R. J. W. (2016). R&D funding policy and university–industry research collaboration in Brazil: The case of petrobras. Blucher Engineering Proceedings, 3, 1–18.
Goldfarb, B. (2008). The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy, 37, 41–58.
Guimarães, R. (2004). Bases para uma política nacional de ciência, tecnologia e inovação em saúde. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 9(2), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232004000200014.
Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.
Klette, T. J., Moen, J., & Griliches, Z. (2000). Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies. Research Policy, 29, 471–495.
Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33, 489–504.
Lauer, M. (2016ª). Citations per dollar as a measure of productivity. [March 15, 2018]; Open Mike.
Lauer, M., Roychowdhury, D., Patel, K. C., Walsh, R., & Pearson, K. (2017). Marginal returns and levels of research grant suport among scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/142554.
Lepori, T. J., & Larédo, P. (2007). Changing patterns of public research funding in France. Science and Public Policy, 34(6), 389–399.
Lorsch, J. R. (2015). Maximising the return on taxpayers’ investments in fundamental biomedical research. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 26(9), 1578–1582. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E14-06-1163.
McManus, C., & Baeta Neves, A. A. (2020). Production Profiles in Brazilian Science, with special attention to social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03452-2.
McManus, C., Baeta Neves, A. A., & Maranhão, A. Q. (2020a). Brazilian publication profiles: Where and how Brazilian authors publish. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 92(2), e20200328. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202020200328.
McManus, C., Baeta Neves, A. A., Maranhão, A. Q., Souza Filho, A. G., & Santana, J. M. (2020b). International collaboration in Brazilian science: Financing and impact. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03728-7.
McManus, C., & Nobre, C. A. (2017). Brazilian scientific mobility program—Science without borders—Preliminary results and perspectives. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 89(1), 773–786. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720160829.
Molas-Gallart, J., & Salter, A. (2002). Diversidad y excelencia: Consideraciones sobre política científica. IPTS report 66.
Mongeon, P., Brodeur, C., Beaudry, C., & Larivière, V. (2016). Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal returns. Research Evaluation, 25, 396–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw007.
Paiva, F. M., & Brito, S. H. A. (2019). O papel da avaliação CAPES no processo de internacionalização da Pós-Graduação em Educação no Brasil (2010-2016). Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior (Campinas), 24(2), 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1414-40772019000200009.
Pavan, C., & Barbosa, M. C. (2018). Article processing charge (APC) for publishing open access articles: The Brazilian scenario. Scientometrics, 117, 805–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2896-2.
Pinheiro-Machado, R., & de Oliveira, P. L. (2001). The Brazilian investment in science and technology. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 34, 1521–1530. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2001001200003.
Prolo, I., Vieira, R. C., Lima, M. C., & Leal, F. G. (2019). The internationalisation of Brazilian universities: Contributions of the ‘science without borders’ programme. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa. https://doi.org/10.13058/raep.2019.v20n2.1330.
Ramos, M. Y. (2018). Internacionalização da pós-graduação no Brasil: lógica e mecanismos. Educação e Pesquisa, 44, e161579. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-9702201706161579.
Santamaría, L., Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego, A. (2010). Public selection and financing of R&D cooperative projects: Credit versus subsidy funding. Research Policy, 39, 549–563.
Sanz-Menéndez, L., & Cruz-Castro, L. (2003). Coping with environmental pressures: Public research organisations responses to funding crises. Research Policy, 32(8), 1293–1308.
Silva, T. S., Milani, A. M. R., & Antunes, V. N. B. (2019). Regional analysis of support policies for C, T&I: A preliminary study of the scientific and technological structure of the Northeast. Review of Economic, 50, 107–123.
Van Noorden, R. (2016). China by numbers. Research capacity has grown rapidly, and now quality is on the rise. Nature, 534, 452–453. https://doi.org/10.1038/534452a.
Wahls, W. P. (2016). Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research. PeerJ., 4, e1917.
Wahls, W. P. (2018). The NIH must reduce disparities in funding to maximise its return on investments from taxpayers. eLife, 2018(7), e34965. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.34965.
Yang, W. (2016). Policy: Boost basic research in China. Nature, 534, 467–469. https://doi.org/10.1038/534467a.
Acknowledgements
To CAPES (Grant No. 001) and CNPq for financing (Grant No. 001).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix
Appendix
Abbreviations
- Citation Impact:
-
Number of citations per document
- CNCI:
-
Category Normalized Citation Impact of a document is calculated by dividing the actual count of citing items by the expected citation rate for documents with the same document type, year of publication and subject area
- DocCit:
-
Number of documents in the database in the period studied that had at least one citation in the database
- High:
-
Highly cited papers are papers that perform in the top 1% based on the number of citations received when compared to other papers published in the same field in the same year
- Ind:
-
Papers published with Industry Collaboration
- JNCI:
-
The Journal Normalized Citation Impact indicator is a similar indicator to the Normalized Citation Impact, but instead of normalising per subject area or field, it normalises the citation rate for the journal in which the document is publishing
- OA:
-
Open Access—is a set of principles and a range of practices through which research outputs are distributed online, free of cost to the reader or other access barrier Publications in Top Journal Percentiles indicates the extent to which an entity’s outputs are present in the most-cited journals in a database source. This metric calculates how many publications, as an absolute count or a percentage, are in the top 1%, 5%, 10% or 25% of the most-cited journals indexed by the database source. An entity can be an institution, a research group or an individual researcher. In this paper we used %Top1% and %Top10%
- Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4:
-
Quartile rankings are therefore derived for each journal in each of its subject categories according to which quartile of the IF distribution the journal occupies for that subject category. Q1 denotes the top 25% of the IF distribution, Q2 for middle-high position (between top 50% and top 25%), Q3 middle-low position (top 75% to top 50%), and Q4 the lowest position (bottom 25% of the IF distribution). In this paper we used %Q1 and %Q2
- WoS:
-
Web of Science is a website which provides subscription-based access to multiple databases that provide comprehensive citation data for many different academic disciplines. It was originally owned by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and is currently maintained by Clarivate Analytics (previously the Intellectual Property and Science business of Thomson Reuters
Financing agencies
- ANPCyT:
-
Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica—Argentina
- ARC:
-
Australian Research Council
- BMBF:
-
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung - Federal Ministry of Education and Research—Germany
- CNRS:
-
Centre national de la recherche scientifique- French National Centre for Scientific Research
- Colciencias:
-
Administrative Department of Science, Technology and Innovation—Colombia
- Conacyt:
-
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia—Mexico
- Conicet:
-
National Scientific and Technical Research Council (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas)—Argentina
- Conicyt:
-
Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica—Chile
- DAAD:
-
Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst—German Academic Exchange Service
- DOE:
-
Department of Energy—USA
- EPSRC:
-
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council—UK
- ANR:
-
French National Research Agency - L’Agence nationale de la recherche
- ERC:
-
European Research Council
- EU:
-
European Union
- FCT:
-
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia—Portugal - Foundation for Science and Technology
- Humdoldt:
-
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation - Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung—Germany
- INFN:
-
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare - National Institute for Nuclear Physics—Italy
- NIAID:
-
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases—USA
- NHMRC:
-
National Health and Medical Research Council—Australia
- CIHR:
-
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- WHO:
-
World Health Organization
- MRC UK:
-
Medical Research Council UK
- NIH:
-
National Institute of Health—USA
- NSF:
-
National Science Foundation—USA
- DFG:
-
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft—German Research Foundation
- NSERC:
-
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- NSFC:
-
National Natural Science Foundation of China
- STFC:
-
Science and Technology Facilities Council—UK
- USDA:
-
United States Department of Agriculture
Brazilian financing agencies
- Capes:
-
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Ministry of education)
- CNPq:
-
National Council for Scientific and Technological Development - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
- Fapemig:
-
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais -Minas Gerais State Agency for Research and Development
- Fapergs:
-
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Rio Grande do Sul
- Faperj:
-
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
- Fapesp:
-
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
- Finep:
-
Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos, or Funding Authority for Studies and Projects
- Fund. Araucaria:
-
Fundação de Apoio à Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação do Paraná
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McManus, C., Baeta Neves, A.A. Funding research in Brazil. Scientometrics 126, 801–823 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03762-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03762-5