4.5 Article

Funding research in Brazil

Journal

SCIENTOMETRICS
Volume 126, Issue 1, Pages 801-823

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03762-5

Keywords

National; International; Competition; Impact; Agency

Funding

  1. CAPES [001]
  2. CNPq [001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Funding is crucial for the survival of science and the development of a country, and this paper investigates the funding citations by Brazilian authors in the Incites(R) database. The study reveals that most of the funding for Brazilian authors comes from agencies such as Capes, CNPq, and FAPESP, with FAPESP having a significant national impact. Furthermore, it is observed that research funded by foreign sources tends to have a greater impact compared to national funding.
Funding is vital for the survival of science and thereby development and sovereignty of a country and should look to the quality of the product. This paper looks at funding citations in Incites(R) database by Brazilian authors. Almost 70% of the documents in this study were funded by one of 10 Brazilian agencies, mainly Capes, CNPq and FAPESP. Although federal agencies (Capes and Cnpq) are important nationwide, the funding agency from Sao Paulo state (FAPESP) was seen to have national impact, probably due to collaboration of researchers from other states with universities in Sao Paulo. The impact of these agencies was lower than when science was funded by foreign sources, which were mainly North American and European. Eighty companies (primarily manufacturing and pharmaceutical) were also seen to fund research in Brazil, none being national. Clusters were formed of co-funding foreign agencies using quality indicators. Cluster separation depended mainly on journal impact factor, open/closed access and % documents in Q1 journals. Using Capes data, citation rates are also low, which may account for 30% of papers nationwide without funding information.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available