IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data


  • Linda Butler


Using research funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the classification of the grant that funded the research which led to the publication was contrasted with the use of a common proxy, journal set classification. Frequently, the two measures produce very similar results but major differences can occur. Acknowledgments data appear to accurately reflect a funding body's total research output, but lack the ability to identify individual funding schemes within such bodies. In contrast to the output funded by long-term grants, publications from research funded on a limited, three-year cycle exhibit a very fast publication turn-around — considerably faster than the often-quoted four years. The accuracy with which researchers report links between publications and the grants from which they emanate is examined. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda Butler, 2001. "Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 59-65, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:10:y:2001:i:1:p:59-65

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Jue Wang & Philip Shapira, 2015. "Is There a Relationship between Research Sponsorship and Publication Impact? An Analysis of Funding Acknowledgments in Nanotechnology Papers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Nicola Grassano & Daniele Rotolo & Joshua Hutton & Frédérique Lang & Michael M. Hopkins, 2017. "Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 999-1017, April.
    3. Jue Wang & Philip Shapira, 2011. "Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 563-586, June.
    4. John Rigby, 2013. "Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 57-73, January.
    5. Xianwen Wang & Di Liu & Kun Ding & Xinran Wang, 2012. "Science funding and research output: a study on 10 countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 591-599, May.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:10:y:2001:i:1:p:59-65. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.