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

Main Article Content

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


Input, output, impact, and processes are central indicators of the science, technology, and innovation production. The input is usually associated to investments made in science and technology, and it varies among different countries and scientific fields. Thus, the input can influence other impact indicators. Here, we evaluated the effect of the input data (i.e., number of funding) on process (i.e., collaboration) and output (i.e., number of citation) indicators of ecological research. Moreover, we detailed the effect of the number of funding on the collaboration and number of citations by each country (based on the nationality of authors). We found that most of published papers had some degrees of financial support, and that the production of papers with funding increased over the years. Funding had a positive effect on the collaboration and citation of papers; however, we observed that: in countries with higher investments in Science and Technology, the number of funding impacts positively and directly on the number of authors (collaboration) and in countries with low levels of investments in Science and Technology, the number of funding impacts positively and directly on the number of citations. Our models presented a low predictive power, but similar to other informetric studies. Our results indicated that impact indicators evaluated have an integrated structure, and the effects at one level can affect other levels. Nonetheless, the impact of the number of funding on informetric data can vary among countries; therefore, these results are important to the development of national policies and future informetric studies.

Article Details

How to Cite
Nabout, J., Faquim, R., Carvalho, R., & Machado, K. (2021). Effects of funding on the collaboration and citation in environmental papers and the relationship with nation’s science and technology budgets. Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences (Online), 56(4), 599-607. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z217694781043


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.
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.
Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, v. 107, (2), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
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.
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.
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-
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-
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/
Geisler, E. 2000. The metrics of science and Technology. Quorum Books, New
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
Leimu, R.; Koricheva, J., 2005b. What determines the citation frequency of
ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, v. 20, (1), 28-32. https://doi.
Lewison, G.; Dawson, G., 1998. The effect of funding on the outputs
of biomedical research. Scientometrics, v. 41, (1-2), 17-27. https://doi.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-
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.
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.
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.
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.
Web of Science. 2009. Funding Acknowledgements (Accessed December 5,
2017) at: http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/
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.
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-
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.
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-