IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v31y2022i3p297-310..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The funding and research trends in library and information science of NSSFC: Comparison of awards and papers

Author

Listed:
  • Jianqin Xiang
  • Haiyan Wang

Abstract

Subject to various restrictive requirements on project application and completion, funded projects are often affected by funding policies for the selection of research objects. This study explored the impact of scientific research funding policies on the funding and research by comparing the topic distribution of awards and papers. A total of 1,870 awards and 16,491 papers of the National Social Science Foundation of China (NSSFC) in library and information science (LIS) were collected from a Chinese research project database. According to the results, the growth rate of awards on most topics is higher than that of papers, while the growth rate of papers on the relevant topics to users, technology, and metrology is higher than that of awards. It was found out in the study that the topics funded by NSSFC were imbalanced. NSSFC provides much more funding to traditional topics rather than emerging topics. As indicated by the funding provided to the projects on traditional topics for research on a large number of papers on emerging topics, however, the innovation and diversity of academic research have yet to be restricted. This study demonstrated that the effect of funding policies on the research topics in LIS is significant. Topic suggestions and funding structure of NSSFC have more impacts on award topics than on paper topics. The influence of NSSFC-recommended topics on paper topics is declining year by year. Additionally, awards with high funding intensity are more susceptible to topic suggestions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianqin Xiang & Haiyan Wang, 2022. "The funding and research trends in library and information science of NSSFC: Comparison of awards and papers," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 297-310.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:31:y:2022:i:3:p:297-310.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvac010
    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.

    Corrections

    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:31:y:2022:i:3:p:297-310.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.