Measuring the funding landscape of COVID-19 research

PurposeThe purpose of the study is to map the funding status of COVID-19 research. The various aspects, such as funding ratio, geographical distribution of funded articles, journals publishing funded research and institutions that sponsor the COVID-19 research are studied. To visualize the country collaboration network and research trends/hotspots in the field of COVID-19 funded research, keyword analysis is also performed. The open-access (OA) status of the funded research on COVID-19 is also discussed.Design/methodology/approachThe leading indexing and abstracting database, i.e. Web of Science (WoS), was used to retrieve the funded articles published on the topic COVID-19. The scientometric approach, more particularly “funding acknowledgment analysis (FAA),” was used to study the research funding.FindingsA total of 5,546 publications of varied nature have been published on COVID-19, of which 1,760 are funded, thus indicating a funding ratio of 32%. China is the leading producer of funded research (760, 43.182%) on COVID-19 followed by the USA (482, 27.386%), England (179, 10.17%), Italy (119, 6.761%), Germany (107, 6.08%) and Canada (107, 6.08%). China is also in lead in terms of the funding ratio (60.94%). However, the funding ratio of the USA (31.54%) is at 11th rank behind Canada (40.68%), Germany (34.18%) and England (35.87%). The USA occupies a central position in the collaboration network having the highest score of articles with other countries (n = 489), with the USA–China collaboration ranking first (n = 123). National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is the largest source of funding for COVID-19 research, supporting 342 (19.432%) publications, followed by the United States Department of Health Human Services (DHHS) and National Institute of Health (NIH), USA with 211 (11.989%) and 200 (11.364%) publications, respectively. However, China's National Key Research and Development Program achieves the highest citation impact (80.24) for its funded publications. Journal of Medical Virology, Science of the Total Environment and EuroSurveillance are the three most prolific journals publishing 63 (3.58%), 35 (1.989%) and 32 (1.818%), respectively, of the sponsored research articles on the COVID-19. A total of 3,138 institutions produce funded articles with Huazhong University of Science Technology and Wuhan University from China at the forefront publishing 92 (5.227%) and 83 (4.716%) publications, respectively. The funded research on COVID-19 is largely available in OA mode (1,674, 95.11%) and mainly through the Green and Bronze routes. The keyword clustering reveals that the articles mainly focus on the impact, structure and clinical characteristics of the virus.Research limitations/implicationsThe study's main limitation is that the results are based on the publications indexed by WoS, which has limited coverage compared to other databases. Moreover, all the funding agencies do not require or authors miss to acknowledge funding sources in their publications, which ultimately undermines the number of funded publications. The research publications on COVID-19 are also proliferating; thus, the study's findings shall be valid for a minimum period.Practical implicationsThe funding of research on the COVID-19 is highly essential to accelerate innovative research and help countries fight against the global pandemic. The study's findings reflect the efforts made by nations and institutions to remove the financial and accessibility hurdles. It not only underscores the lead of the USA in the research on COVID-19, but also shows China as a forerunner in sponsoring the research, thus, helping to know the contribution of nations toward understanding the dynamics of pandemic and controlling it. The study will help healthcare practitioners and policymakers recognize the areas that remain the focus of sponsored research on COVID-19 and other left-out areas that need to be taken up and thus may help in policy formulation. It further highlights the impact of prolific funding agencies so that efforts may be initiated to increase the impact and thereby the returns of investment. The study can help to map the scientific structure of COVID-19 through the lens of funded research and recognize core inclinations of its development. Overall, a comprehensive analysis has been performed to present the detailed characteristics of sponsored research on emerging area of COVID-19, and it is informative, useful and one of its kind on the theme.Originality/valueThe study explores the funding support of research on COVID-19 and its other aspects, along with the mode of availability.

Science and Pseudoscience

In the nineteenth century, political, social, and industrial revolutions shattered the class ceiling of Renaissance and early modern numismatics. Wealthy enthusiasts and dedicated academics from outside European aristocracy gained greater access to collectible coins and soon organized themselves into clubs and learned societies. They sponsored research journals, adopted new technologies such as photography, introduced new investigative methods such as the die study, and established numismatics as a scientific discipline with a foothold in university curricula. Yet, even as numismatics became more and more scientific in its aims and methods, old notions endured about coins and physiognomy. The rise of phrenology as a pseudoscience infiltrated the field and still undermines the historical value of some numismatic research. Another unfortunate development has been the estrangement of numismatics and archaeology because the latter now repudiates its antiquarian origins and generally denounces coin collecting as a form of looting.

Industry-Sponsored Research Payments in Neurosurgery—Analysis of the Open Payments Database From 2014 to 2018

BACKGROUND The Open Payments Database (OPD) started in 2013 to combat financial conflicts of interest between physicians and medical industry. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the first 5 yr of the OPD regarding industry-sponsored research funding (ISRF) in neurosurgery. METHODS The Open Payments Research Payments dataset was examined from 2014 to 2018 for payments where the clinical primary investigator identified their specialty as neurosurgery. RESULTS Between 2014 and 2018, a $106.77 million in ISRF was made to 731 neurosurgeons. Fewer than 11% of neurosurgeons received ISRF yearly. The average received $140 000 in total but the median received $30,000. This was because the highest paid neurosurgeon received $3.56 million. A greater proportion ISRF was made to neurosurgeons affiliated with teaching institutions when compared to other specialties (26.74% vs 20.89%, P = .0021). The proportion of the total value of ISRF distributed to neurosurgery declined from 0.43% of payments to all specialties in 2014 to 0.37% in 2018 (P < .001), but no steady decline was observed from year to year. CONCLUSION ISRF to neurosurgeons comprises a small percentage of research payments made to medical research by industry sponsors. Although a greater percentage of payments are made to neurosurgeons in teaching institutions compared to other specialties, the majority is given to neurosurgeons not affiliated with a teaching institution. A significant percentage of ISRF is given to a small percentage of neurosurgeons. There may be opportunities for more neurosurgeons to engage in industry-sponsored research to advance our field as long as full and complete disclosures can always be made.