ArticlePloS one2021
Getting to the bottom of research funding: Acknowledging the complexity of funding dynamics.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Posttraumatic stress symptoms and posttraumatic stress disorder in adolescents exposed to continuous traumatic stress in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Review
- How governments influence public health research: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Priced out of belonging? Insufficient concessions on membership fees across international societies in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Overcoming the Tropical Andes publication divide: Insights from local researchers on challenges and solutions.PloS one · 2024Article
- Basic, translational, and clinical research - a short reflection.Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2024Article
- Discrepancies among Scopus and Web of Science, coverage of funding information in medical journal articles: a follow-up study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
- Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2023Article
- Article
- The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Disparities in health and climate change research funding: The funders and the funded.The journal of climate change and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research funding is an important factor for public science. Funding may affect which research topics get addressed, and what research outputs are produced. However, funding has often been studied simplistically, using top-down or system-led perspectives. Such approaches often restrict analysis to confined national funding landscapes or single funding organizations and instruments in isolation. This overlooks interlinkages, broader funding researchers might access, and trends of growing funding complexity. This paper instead frames a 'bottom-up' approach that analytically distinguishes between increasing levels of aggregation of funding instrument co-use. Funding of research outputs is selected as one way to test this approach, with levels traced via funding acknowledgements (FAs) in papers published 2009-18 by researchers affiliated to Denmark, the Netherlands or Norway, in two test research fields (Food Science, Renewable Energy Research). Three funding aggregation levels are delineated: at the bottom, 'funding configurations' of funding instruments co-used by individual researchers (from single-authored papers with two or more FAs); a middle, 'funding amalgamations' level, of instruments co-used by collaborating researchers (from multi-authored papers with two or more FAs); and a 'co-funding network' of instruments co-used across all researchers active in a research field (all papers with two or more FAs). All three levels are found to include heterogenous funding co-use from inside and outside the test countries. There is also co-funding variety in terms of instrument 'type' (public, private, university or non-profit) and 'origin' (domestic, foreign or supranational). Limitations of the approach are noted, as well as its applicability for future analyses not using paper FAs to address finer details of research funding dynamics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.