On the Reliability of Funding Acknowledgements as Research Data: Evidence from Astronomy

TL;DR

This study investigates the reliability of funding acknowledgements in astronomy research papers, revealing significant discrepancies in author-reported funding data and questioning their use as accurate research support indicators.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence on the limitations of funding acknowledgements as research data, highlighting discrepancies and suggesting cautious use in scientometric analyses.

Findings

Only 71.4% of authors reported NSF funding in surveys.

Funding streams can be fluid and not always apparent to authors.

Funding acknowledgements may not reliably reflect actual research support.

Abstract

Online bibliographic databases have enabled new research through which bibliographic records are analyzed as data about science. Within these records, the acknowledgements sections of papers are often used to draw conclusions about funding support for published research. While acknowledgements and funding statements can be informative for research and policy development, this poster adds to a body of literature that highlights limitations of funding data for scientometric and policy research, using evidence gathered from a questionnaire of authors of astronomy journal articles. The study shows that only 71.4% of a sample of authors of papers tied to NSF grants through acknowledgements reported in the survey that NSF funded the research presented in the respective papers. A brief analysis of the questionnaire followed by recommendations and considerations for further research are presented. The discrepancy in reporting appears to indicate that funding streams can be fluid and not always apparent to authors, overall raising the question of what sorts of research should be addressed with funding statements, where conceptually tying a paper directly to a grant is not straightforward.