IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

An analysis of global research funding from subject field and funding agencies perspectives in the G9 countries


  • Mu-Hsuan Huang

    () (National Taiwan University)

  • Mei-Jhen Huang

    (National Taiwan University)


This study analyzed journal articles published by authors from the G9 countries (Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) to identify the distribution of research funding and funding agencies in these countries. A total of 5,856,744 articles published between 2009 and 2014 were collected from the Web of Science database. The results showed that China had the highest proportion of funded papers among its overall scientific output, while Italy had the lowest funded paper ratio. The leading sponsoring countries of papers by other countries were China and the United States, with China having a sponsorship surplus with all the other G9 countries, and the United States having a sponsorship surplus with seven other countries excepting China. Furthermore, governmental agencies were the major sponsors of funded papers in the G9 countries. The field of life sciences had the highest proportion of funded papers among the field’s total paper output; while natural sciences had the highest proportion of papers among all funded papers of a country. Regarding funding agencies, the top three funding agencies in each G9 country were primarily domestic agencies; and a large proportion of the funding provided by these agencies were granted to domestic research projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Mu-Hsuan Huang & Mei-Jhen Huang, 2018. "An analysis of global research funding from subject field and funding agencies perspectives in the G9 countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 833-847, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2677-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2677-y

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Grimpe, Christoph, 2012. "Extramural research grants and scientists’ funding strategies: Beggars cannot be choosers?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1448-1460.
    2. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    3. Rodrigo Costas & Thed N. Leeuwen, 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 & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(8), pages 1647-1661, August.
    4. Braun, Dietmar, 1998. "The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 807-821, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Fernanda Morillo & María Bordons, 2017. "Funding acknowledgments in the Web of Science: completeness and accuracy of collected data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1793-1812, September.
    7. Sotaro Shibayama, 2011. "Distribution of academic research funds: a case of Japanese national research grant," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 43-60, July.
    8. Dangzhi Zhao, 2010. "Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 293-306, August.
    9. Bolli, Thomas & Somogyi, Frank, 2011. "Do competitively acquired funds induce universities to increase productivity?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 136-147, February.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff, 2003. "The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 445-467, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Li Tang & Guangyuan Hu & Weishu Liu, 2017. "Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(3), pages 790-794, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Weishu Liu & Li Tang & Guangyuan Hu, 2020. "Funding information in Web of Science: an updated overview," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1509-1524, March.
    2. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    3. Fernanda Morillo, 2019. "Collaboration and impact of research in different disciplines with international funding (from the EU and other foreign sources)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 807-823, August.

    More about this item


    Research funding; Funding agency; Bibliometric analysis; G9;

    JEL classification:


    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:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2677-y. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). 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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    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.