Evolution of priorities in strategic funding for collaborative health research. A comparison of the European Union Framework Programmes to the program funding by the United States National Institutes of Health

The historical research-funding model, based on the curiosity and academic interests of researchers, is giving way to new strategic funding models that seek to meet societal needs. We investigated the impact of this trend on health research funded by the two leading funding bodies worldwide, i.e. the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States, and the framework programs of the European Union (EU). To this end, we performed a quantitative analysis of the content of projects supported through programmatic funding by the EU and NIH, in the period 2008-2014 and 2015-2020. We used machine learning for classification of projects as basic biomedical research, or as more implementation directed clinical therapeutic research, diagnostics research, population research, or policy and management research. In addition, we analyzed funding for major disease areas (cancer, cardio-metabolic and infectious disease). We found that EU collaborative health research projects clearly shifted towards more implementation research. In the US, the recently implemented UM1 program has a similar profile with strong clinical therapeutic research, while other NIH programs remain heavily oriented to basic biomedical research. Funding for cancer research is present across all NIH and EU programs, and in biomedical as well as more implementation directed projects, while infectious diseases is an emerging theme. We conclude that demand for solutions for medical needs leads to expanded funding for implementation- and impact-oriented research. Basic biomedical research remains present in programs driven by scientific initiative and strategies based on excellence, but may be at risk of declining funding opportunities

Expression of concern: Bibliometric study of Electronic Commerce Research in Information Systems & MIS Journals, Scientometrics, 2016, 109(3), 1455-1476 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2142-8)

status: publishe

The big challenge of Scientometrics 2.0: exploring the broader impact of scientific research in public health

status: publishe

Obituary IRINA V MARSHAKOVA (1941-2019)

status: publishe

Which differences can be expected when two universities in the Leiden Ranking are compared? Some benchmarks for institutional research evaluations

© 2018, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary. The comparison of two universities in terms of bibliometric indicators frequently faces the problem of assessing the differences as meaningful or not. This Letter to the Editor proposes some benchmarks which can be used for supporting the interpretation of institutional differences.status: publishe

Garfield number: on some characteristics of Eugene Garfield's first and second order co-authorship networks

© 2017, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary. In this note we give an overview of the first- and second-order collaboration network reflected by Eugene Garfield’s publications in scientific journals. Although he had only a quite limited number of co-authors and co-publications, his co-authors’ own collaboration networks generate a large world-wide and multidisciplinary coverage. The classical model of co-authorship network is the Erdős network with the Erdős Number indicating the shortest co-authorship path through which an author is connected with Paul Erdős. The two networks, generated by Erdős and Garfield, respectively, show completely different patterns and characteristics but illustrate the ways how ideas of great scholars and pioneers disseminate and influence the respective scientific communities.status: publishe