Understanding the funding characteristics of research impact: A proof-of-concept study linking REF 2014 impact case studies with Researchfish grant agreements

Background: All parts of the research community have an interest in understanding research impact whether that is around the pathways to impact, processes around impact, methods for measurement, describing impact and so on. This proof of concept study explored the relationship between research funding and research impact using the case studies submitted to the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise in 2014 as a proxy for impact. Methods: The paper describes an approach to link the REF impact case studies with the underpinning research grants present in the Researchfish dataset, primarily using the publications captured in both datasets. Where possible the methodology utilised unique identifiers such as Digital Object Identifiers and PubMed ID’s, and where this was not possible the funding information within each publication was used. Results: Through this automated approach 21% of the non-redacted case studies could be linked to a specific research grant. Additional qualitative analysis was then done for unlinked REF impact case studies, which involved reading the document to identify additional information to make the linkage. This approach was taken on 100 REF impact case studies selected at random and resulted in only seven having no identifiable research grants funding associated. The linked research grants were analysed to identify characteristics that are more frequently associated with these grants, than non-linked ones. Conclusions: This analysis did point to some interesting observations such as the grant funding linked to REF impact case studies are more likely to be longer, higher financial value, have more publications and be more collaborative (amongst other characteristics). These findings should be used with caution at present and not be over interpreted, this is due to the sample size for this proof of concept study and some potential limitations on the data which were not addressed at this stage.

Open Science Indicators as Metadata Fields?

Since 2000, there has been qualitative growth in the field of scientometrics. Innovations such as the DOI and the ORCID have irrevocably changed the scientific landscape. They have enabled analyses previously unheard of, in the decades preceding the new millennium. This paper proposes open science indicators (open data, open material, preregistration) as article-specific metadata fields. The authors reference the history of funding information, from bare acknowledgements to metadata field. The authors describe the mission of the Center for Open Science, and its TOP Factor database, as well as the performance of open science badges. Possibilities for a pilot study are explored, with an acknowledgement of the complexity of this undertaking.

Corrigendum

Minor changes are required in the Funding information and the acknowledgement for the article entitled “Organosulphur Compounds Induce Apoptosis and Cell Cycle Arrest in Cervical Cancer Cells via Downregulation of HPV E6 and E7 Oncogenes” in “Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry, 2021, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 393-405.” The correct Funding information and Acknowledgement is given below: FUNDING: This project was funded by the Council of Science and Technology (CST), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India (Sanction No. CST/374). The financial support during this research was also provided by the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudia Arabia through the General Research Project under grant number R.G.P. 01/48/42. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: IAA is greatly thankful to the Council of Science and Technology (CST), Uttar Pradesh, India, for providing him project as a Principal Investigator. Authors would also like to acknowledge the support of the King Khalid University through the General Research Project under grant number R.G.P. 01/48/42. under the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudia Arabia

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other Double Blind- Remove the author names and affiliations of the authors anywhere in the manuscript. Remove names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript. Do not include or remove any author names or affiliations in the Acknowledgements section of your manuscript. Author names and Funding information should be removed and can be included later in the peer review process. Do not sign your author response, rebuttals, or appeals with author names. Do not include or remove any names in any file names and ensure document properties are also anonymised. Check that your figures and schemes do not include author details. • Conference submission management system: ∘ https://easychair.org/conferences/submissions?a=26389499 • Number of submissions received: 114 (Abstract) • Number of submissions sent for review: 68 • Number of submissions accepted: 59 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 55.6% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 83 • Any additional info on review process: Turnitin was used to check plagiarism. • Contact person for queries: Assoc. Prof. Ir. Dr. Sarina Sulaiman, Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia. Email: [email protected] Assoc. Prof. Dr Noor Noor Illi, Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia. Email: [email protected] Dr Mohd Firdaus Abd Wahab, Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia. Email: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Zahangir Alam, Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia. Email: [email protected]

Participation Reports help Crossref members drive research further

This article aims to explain the key metadata elements listed in Participation Reports, why it’s important to check them regularly, and how Crossref members can improve their scores. Crossref members register a lot of metadata in Crossref. That metadata is machine-readable, standardized, and then shared across discovery services and author tools. This is important because richer metadata makes content more discoverable and useful to the scholarly community. It’s not always easy to know what metadata Crossref members register in Crossref. This is why Crossref created an easy-to-use tool called Participation Reports to show editors, and researchers the key metadata elements Crossref members register to make their content more useful. The key metadata elements include references and whether they are set to open, ORCID iDs, funding information, Crossmark metadata, licenses, full-text URLs for text-mining, and Similarity Check indexing, as well as abstracts. ROR IDs (Research Organization Registry Identifiers), that identify institutions will be added in the future. This data was always available through the Crossref ’s REST API (Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface) but is now visualized in Participation Reports. To improve scores, editors should encourage authors to submit ORCIDs in their manuscripts and publishers should register as much metadata as possible to help drive research further.

Sex Disparities in Productivity among Oculoplastic Surgeons

Purpose The aim of the study is to investigate sex differences in academic rank, publication productivity, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding among oculoplastic surgeons and whether there is an association between American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) membership and scholarly output. Methods Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were obtained from institutional websites of 113 U.S. ophthalmology programs. H-indices and m-quotients were obtained from the Scopus database. NIH funding information was obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool. Results Of the 272 surgeons, 74 (30.2%) were females. When adjusted for career duration, differences in female to male proportions were only significant at the rank of assistant professor (assistant: 74.3 vs. 48.5%, p = 0.047; associate: 18.9 vs. 24.6%, p = 0.243; full professor: 13.0 vs. 37.2%, p = 0.114). Women had a shorter career duration than men [10.0 (interquartile range or IQR 12.0) vs. 21.0 (IQR 20.0) years; p < 0.001] and a lower h-index [4.0 (IQR 5.0) vs. 7.0 (IQR 10.0); p < 0.001], but similar m-quotients [0.4 (IQR 0.4) vs. 0.4 (IQR 0.4); p = 0.9890]. Among ASOPRS members, females had a lower h-index than males [5.0 (IQR 6.0) vs. 9.0 (IQR 10.0); p < 0.001] due to career length differences. No difference in productivity between sexes was found among non-ASOPRS members. ASOPRS members from both sexes had higher scholarly output than their non-ASOPRS counterparts. Just 2.7% (2/74) of females compared with 5.3% (9/171) of males received NIH funding (p = 0.681). Conclusion Sex differences in academic ranks and h-indices are likely due to the smaller proportion of females with long career durations. ASOPRS membership may confer opportunities for increased scholarly output.

Do Cash Flow and Accounting Profit Information Affect Stock Prices?

ABSTRACT This study aims to determine the effect of cash flow statement information and accounting profit on stock prices. The object of this research is a food & beverage sub-sector manufacturing company listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2015-2019. The sampling technique used a purposive sampling technique with ten samples of financial statements that meet the criteria. The analysis technique uses the help of Partial Lease Square (PLS) with SmartPLS 3.0 Software. The study results show that the Cash Flow Statement of operating and funding information does not affect stock prices. On the other hand, information on the investing Cash Flow Statement and accounting profit affect stock prices. The more investors intend to buy or keep shares; the stock price will increase. Vice versa, if the number of investors who intend to sell or release shares increases, the share price will decrease. Based on these results, it is suggested that investors in deciding on selling or buying stock shares may pay more attention to the information from investing cash flow and accounting profit.