1 Introduction
Citations of scientific publications are a main indicator of the diffusion of science and recorded knowledge for supporting the scientific development, new technological applications and also scientific performance of scholars, journals, institutions, etc. (Ma, 2021; Mosleh et al., 2022; Saam & Reiter, 1999). The studies of documents and recorded knowledge in the field of science of science analyze manifold aspects of these topics, such as Li et al. (2013) analyze the relation between authorship networks and publication performances, Petersen et al. (2014) analyze the driving role of institutions’ collaboration on citations of scientific production, whereas other scholars investigate the impact of funding agencies on research activity (MacLean et al., 1998), how research sponsorship affects citations in nanotechnology papers (Wang & Shapira, 2011), the academic performance of scientific teams (Zhang et al., 2023), etc. Yan et al. (2018) maintain that funded rather than unfunded studies receive more citations. Quinlan et al. (2008) also point out that funded researches that are published in journals generate more citations than unfunded documents (cf., Morillo, 2020; Pao, 1991; Roshani et al, 2021). Zhao et al. (2018) suggest that research funding is basic for reward system in studies (cf., Stephan, 1996). Heyard and Hottenrott (2021) show that funded studies receive more public attention than other researches. Roshani et al. (2021) analyze specific research fields and show that in computer science, medicine and economics, funded studies published in journals receive more citations than unfunded ones. Instead, Mosleh et al. (2022) analyze main research fields (agricultural and biological sciences; biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology; immunology and microbiology; neuroscience; and pharmacology, toxicology and pharmaceutics) and show that funded researches that are published in articles of journals receive more citations than unfunded research activity and that funded research has a higher scale factor (multiplier) than unfunded one. Ali and Nazim (2023) analyze funded and non-funded research published in high-impact library and information science journals.
In this context, a fundamental question, hardly known, is to clarify the patterns of citations of leading scholars in natural sciences considering funded and unfunded researches published in articles of scientific journals and if the relations are consistent with the science dynamics in research fields as a whole. In particular, this study seeks to answer the following research questions (RQ):
RQ1: How is the relationship between research funding and citations of articles by Nobel Laureates in chemistry, physics, and medicine?
RQ2: The estimated power-law function of citations on funded and unfunded researches published in articles by Nobel laureates in chemistry, physics, and medicine is consistent when compared to estimated relationship based on overall data in these research fields?
The present study confronts these scientific inquiries here by developing a scientometric analysis based on papers of Nobel Laureates (in physics, chemistry and medicine, over 2019 - 2020) to assess how research funding can affect the citations and if the relation found is similar with the same research fields as a whole.
The paper here is part of a large body of research that endeavors to successfully identify and explain the driving forces of scientific development and diffusion to support best practices of research policy directed to a fruitful evolution of science having a positive societal impact (cf., Fortunato et al., 2018; Coccia, 2018, 2018a-b, 2019, 2019a⇓⇓⇓-e, 2020, 2020a⇓-c, 2021, 2022; Coccia et al., 2015, 2023; Coccia & Rolfo, 2008; Coccia & Roshani, 2024; Coccia & Wang, 2016; Huang et al., 2023; Mosleh et al., 2022; Roshani et al., 2021).
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical background, discussing theories and previous works that frame our research. Section 3 describes the materials and methods, detailing our research design, data collection, modelling and analytical techniques and statistical analyses. In Section 4, we present our results and a comprehensive discussion, comparing our findings with existing literature and drawing insights for scientific development and diffusion. Finally, Section 5 show concluding remarks and implications of our findings for effective science and research policies. In addition, we discuss the limitations of our study and suggest further directions for future research in these main topics.
2 Theoretical background
In order to examine the relationship between research funding and citation of leading scholars and related research fields, a background of previous studies and results can clarify the current state-of-the-art in these topics. Hu and Rousseau (2017) analyze the short-run and long-run contributions of Nobel laureates to clarify their scientific advances. Turki et al. (2020) investigate the scientific production, citations and co-citation networks of Nobel winners to explain, how and when Nobel-awarded discoveries have been achieved and published. Li et al. (2022) conduct a scientometric analysis of the interdisciplinarity of research by scholars winning Nobel Prize compared to non-Nobel Prize in the field of physiology. Results show that papers of Nobel Prize winners have a lower interdisciplinarity than studies of non-Nobel Prize scholars. Bjørk (2020) investigates the most important journals that have published Nobel Prize-awarded papers in physics and shows the vital role of specialized journals, such as Physical Review Letters and Astrophysical journal, whereas the multidisciplinary journals (e.g., Science and Nature) have a small share of papers having discoveries leading to win a Nobel Prize. This study also reveals that path-breaking contributions in physics are published in journals regardless of having a high impact factor. Ma et al. (2012) show that the papers of Nobel Laureates (e.g., in physics) have been published mainly in journals of their own country and of the USA. Kosmulski (2020) analyzes the contributions of about 100 Nobel laureates in chemistry, economy, medicine, and physics from 2010 to 2019 and reveals that 32 Nobel laureates were in top 6,000 scientists considering the Hirsch (H) index, whereas 17 Nobel laureates were among the 6,000 highly cited researchers, 4 Nobel laureates were in top 6,000 scientists considering the number of papers, and finally only 2 Nobel laureates were in top 6,000 scientists based on the number of highly cited papers. Kademani et al. (2005) analyze scientific productivity, collaboration and authorship status of Nobel Laureates and show the specificity of their research activity, such that their studies cannot be compared among each other. The study also reveals that the important discoveries of leading scholars are due to manifold factors, such as education, scientific institution, affiliation, intuition, serendipity, luck, self-determination, research funding, etc. (Coccia, 2005, 2008, 2008a, b; Coccia, 2009, 2010, 2014; 2018a, c; Coccia, 2019b, d, f; Pagliaro & Coccia, 2021). Moreover, Nobel laureates have mainly multi-authored papers, suggesting that the research is of leading scholars becoming more and more collaborative to investigate complex topics that support the scientific and technological development (cf., also Mabe & Amin, 2002; Coccia et al., 2023; Coccia & Bozeman, 2016; Coccia & Wang, 2016). Bjørk (2019) also analyzes at what age Nobel Laureates produce their most groundbreaking works: in general, the average age when their Prize-winning research was conducted is about 44 years, except in physics where scholars are younger. Moreover, Nobel Laureates in physics have published their path-breaking contributions in a short run compared to Nobel laureates in other fields, whereas in economics, the scientific production leading to a Nobel Prize is produced over a longer period compared to Nobel Laureates in other disciplines. In addition, waiting time from the published research having the discovery and/or scientific advance to the year of the award of Nobel Prize is about 22 years. Instead, Heinze and Fuchs (2022) investigate the spatial distribution of Nobel Laureates in medicine, physics and chemistry across countries and show that four countries support mainly the education leading to be awarded of a Nobel Prize: the USA, the UK, Germany and France. Results also reveal the hegemony of education in US universities for achieving the Nobel Prize, such as Princeton University for Physics, the Rockefeller University for Chemistry and Medicine/Physiology, etc. Other studies focus on other aspects (Rodríguez‐Navarro, 2011; Sen et al., 1998; Urde & Greyser, 2015; Wen, 2019).
Overall, then, the existing body of research has examined various factors of Nobel Laureates’ scientific activity, such as the timing and interdisciplinary of their work, education, publications in specialized journals, and the role of institutional factors. However, how the citations of their articles in journals are associated with research funding is unknown. The goal here is to analyze this problem to clarify the relation between research funding and citations of papers by Nobel Laureates in some research fields, comparing the results to average citations in the same research fields as a whole. The next section presents the methodology to analyze these interesting topics of social studies of science and scientometrics related to documents and recorded knowledge of leading scholars.
3 Materials and methods
3.1 Sample and sources of data
This study focuses on articles until 2018 of Nobel Laureates that have been awarded in 2019 and 2020 in chemistry, physics, and medicine. Data are from Web of Science (2022). We searched the name of each Nobel Laureate in the “RESEARCHERS” search module of the Web of Science database and the publication types are limited to “articles” and “reviews” published in journals. We exclude the article published after the year 2018 because articles need from three to five years to receive a certain amount of citations (Clements, 2017). To ensure the accuracy of our data and to distinguish between researchers having similar or identical names, we utilized a two-fold verification method. Firstly, we referenced the official researcher profile pages associated with respective institutions of scholars. This analysis provided a consolidated list of publications and ensured that the works belonged to these Nobel laureates. Secondly, we cross-verified these publications using their unique ORCID IDs, which offer a persistent digital identifier to distinguish researchers and reliably link scholars to their scientific publications.
Table 1. Fields, Nobel laureates, and publications (until the year 2018). |
| Research Fields | Nobel Laureates | Year of Nobel Prize | Number of papers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physics | Andrea M. Ghez | 2020 | 364 |
| Reinhard Genzel | |||
| Roger Penrose | |||
| Jim Peebles | 2019 | 673 | |
| Didier Queloz | |||
| Michel Mayor | |||
| Chemistry | Jennifer Doudna | 2020 | 290 |
| Emmanuelle Charpentier | |||
| Akira Yoshino | 2019 | 527 | |
| John B. Goodenough | |||
| M. Stanley Whittingham | |||
| Medicine | Michael Houghton | 2020 | 836 |
| Harvey J. Alter | |||
| Charles M. Rice | |||
| William G. Kaelin | 2019 | 849 | |
| Gregg L. Semenza | |||
| Peter J. Ratcliffe |
3.2 Sample and sources of overall articles published in medicine, chemistry and physics
Results of Nobel Laureates are compared to overall data in physics, chemistry and medicine, based on publications present in Web of Science (2022). Articles in these main disciplines include the following categories:
- Physics=(“Physics, Applied” OR “Physics, Atomic, Molecular & Chemical” OR “Physics, Condensed Matter” OR “Physics, Fluids & Plasmas” OR “Physics, Mathematical” OR “Physics, Multidisciplinary” OR “Physics, Nuclear” OR “Physics, Particles & Fields”) to find the articles related to Physics science.
The number of articles was 127,409.
- Chemistry WC=(“Chemistry, Analytical” OR “Chemistry, Applied” OR “Chemistry, Inorganic & Nuclear” OR “Chemistry, Inorganic & Nuclear” OR “Chemistry, Medicinal” OR “Chemistry, Multidisciplinary” OR “Chemistry, Organic” OR “Chemistry, Physical”).
The number of articles in chemistry was 188,027.
- the string search for retrieving articles in Medicine was WC=(Medicine, General & Internal” OR “Medicine, Legal” OR “Medicine, Research & Experimental” OR “Physiology”). The number of articles in Medicine was 55,419. Categories related to “Medicine” and “Physiology” were chosen to capture publications directly associated with the domains recognized by the Nobel Prize in these disciplines. Although some fields of research, such as “Biochemistry & Molecular Biology,” “Cell Biology,” and “Reproductive Biology” have inter-related topics with medicine and physiology, the decision to exclude broader categories like “Biology,” “Biodiversity & Conservation,” “Marine & Freshwater Biology,” and “Evolutionary Biology” is due to maintain the research’s precision in detecting papers of Nobles mainly in journal of medicine. Moreover, the introduction in our dataset of articles less directly tied to our central focus could generate statistical distortionin estimation of models.
3.3 Measures
In this study, we analyzed the articles and citations of Nobel Laureates in medicine, physics and chemistry awarded in 2019 and 2020 and then we compared the results to overall articles and citations in these research fields as a whole. The number of papers published by Nobel Laureates, and also total number of articles published in the fields of medicine, chemistry and physics are the independent variables of the model (1) described in the next section.
The total number of citations received by these two groups of papers (i.e., Nobel laureate publications and articles of overall research fields of medicine, chemistry and physics) is the dependent variable in model. The values of this variable were from the Time Cited (TC) field of each article in the database of Web of Science (2022).
Three different sub-sets are considered:
● Funded: scientific researches that received funding and were published in articles of journals
● Unfunded: published articles reporting studies that did not receive research funding
● Total: number of funded and unfunded articles published in journals.
3.4 Modelling and data analysis procedure
The study provides descriptive statistics and applies the model (1) to analyze the power-law relationship between citations and total number of funded and unfunded studies published in papers of journals by the Nobel laureates in chemistry, physics and medicine and also the same model using data of overall articles in chemistry, medicine and physics (cf., Ronda-Pupo & Katz, 2017):
C = k P α
- C is the number of citations
- P is the number of articles (total/funded/unfunded)
- k is constant
- α is the scaling factor (the slope). Additionally, parameter α can provide information of the magnitude of Matthew effect (in brief, the intensity of credit; cf., Merton, 1988; Liang et al., 2023) given by total citations of funded and unfunded articles (cf., Ronda-Pupo and Katz, 2016; Katz, 2016).
The logarithmic transformation of equation (1) is:
log (C) = log (k) + α log (P)
□ α > 1, the number of citation has a super-linear growth (acceleration): citations grow faster than number of articles published, suggesting a high Matthew effect (a higher growth of citations with the growth of papers).
□ α < 1, the relation has a sub-linear growth: citations have a slower growth than publications, suggesting a low Matthew effect or cumulative disadvantage (a lower growth of citations with the growth of papers).
□ α = 1, the relation has a linear growth: similar growth rate between citations and papers published, suggesting an balanced Matthew effect (a proportional growth of citations with the growth of papers).
We use the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method to estimate the relation (1) and determine the empirical value of k and α parameters (Leguendre and Leguendre, 2012). T-test verifies the significance of the scaling exponents in estimated power-law relations.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Findings for publications and citations of Nobel laureates in Medicine, Physics and Chemistry in 2019 and 2020
Table 2. Number of documents and citations concerning articles published by the Nobel laureates in chemistry, medicine and physics per funding status over 2019-2020. |
| Field | Year | Sources | Papers | % | Citations | % | Names of Nobel Laureates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 2020 | Funded + Unfunded | 290 | 100.0 | 60,772 | 100.0 | Jennifer Doudna Emmanuelle Charpentier |
| Funded | 213 | 73.45 | 51,266 | 84.35 | |||
| Unfunded | 77 | 26.55 | 9,506 | 15.65 | |||
| 2019 | Funded + Unfunded | 527 | 100.0 | 66,120 | 100.0 | Akira Yoshino John B. Goodenough M. Stanley Whittingham | |
| Funded | 317 | 60.15 | 44,563 | 67.40 | |||
| Unfunded | 210 | 39.85 | 21,557 | 32.60 | |||
| 2019 +2020 | Funded + Unfunded | 817 | 100.0 | 125,892 | 100.0 | All scholars awarded in 2019 and 2020 in chemistry | |
| Funded | 530 | 64.9 | 95,829 | 76.12 | |||
| Unfunded | 287 | 35.1 | 31,063 | 24.68 | |||
| Medicine | 2020 | Funded + Unfunded | 836 | 100.0 | 132,520 | 100.0 | Michael Houghton Harvey J. Alter Charles M. Rice |
| Funded | 522 | 62.44 | 70,831 | 53.45 | |||
| Unfunded | 314 | 37.56 | 61,689 | 46.55 | |||
| 2019 | Funded + Unfunded | 849 | 100.0 | 213,368 | 100.0 | William G. Kaelin Gregg L. Semenza Peter J. Ratcliffe | |
| Funded | 522 | 61.48 | 130,752 | 61.28 | |||
| Unfunded | 327 | 38.52 | 82,616 | 38.72 | |||
| 2019+2020 | Funded + Unfunded | 1,685 | 100.0 | 345,888 | 100.0 | All scholars awarded in 2019 and 2020 in medicine or physiology | |
| Funded | 1,044 | 61.96 | 201,583 | 58.28 | |||
| Unfunded | 641 | 38.04 | 144,305 | 41.72 | |||
| Physics | 2020 | Funded + Unfunded | 364 | 100.0 | 38,168 | 100.0 | Andrea M. Ghez Roger Penrose Reinhard Genzel |
| Funded | 142 | 39.01 | 13,821 | 36.21 | |||
| Unfunded | 222 | 60.99 | 24,347 | 63.78 | |||
| 2019 | Funded + Unfunded | 673 | 100.0 | 71,635 | 100.0 | Jim Peebles Didier Queloz Michel Mayor | |
| Funded | 288 | 42.79 | 18,919 | 26.41 | |||
| Unfunded | 385 | 57.21 | 52,716 | 73.59 | |||
| 2019 +2020 | Funded + Unfunded | 1037 | 100.0 | 109,803 | 100.0 | All scholars awarded in 2019 and 2020 in physics | |
| Funded | 430 | 41.46 | 32,740 | 29.82 | |||
| Unfunded | 607 | 58.54 | 77,063 | 70.18 |
The first research question stated in the introduction was: Is there a relationship between research funding and citations of articles by Nobel Laureates in chemistry, physics, and medicine?
In chemistry, articles based on funded studies receive more citations than unfunded ones. In medicine, articles based on funded studies of Nobel laureates also received more citations than unfunded ones (58.28% vs. 41.72%). Instead, in physics the Nobel Laureates (in 2019 and 2020 years) have different patterns: only 41.46% of researches in articles were supported by financial resources, and the number of citations for these funded studies is 29.82% of total, whereas total citations in unfunded studies published in articles of jorunals are 70.18%. The scaling exponent (α) of Nobel Laureates in physics and medicine is higher in unfunded than funded studies published in papers. According to statistical analysis here, scientific production of Nobel Laureates in chemistry has a high impetus in citations if based on sponsored research, revealing a high Matthew effect measured with citations. This result shows that sponsorship can be a vital factor in determining a widespread dissemination of scientific knowledge and recorded documents by citations in chemistry, likely due to a more applied research activity and also reputation of these leading scholars awarded with Nobel Prize (cf., Dewett & Denisi, 2004; Wang & Shapira, 2015). Citations of papers written by Nobel Laureates in physics seem to be independent from research funding: this effect may be due to scientific research that in physics is more oriented to basic rather than applied aspects of science.
The second research question stated in the introduction was: if the estimated power-law functions of citations on funded and unfunded studies published in articles of journals by Nobel laureates in chemistry, physics, and medicine has a similar or different behaviour with relationships based on data of these research fields as a whole.
Table 3. Estimated power-law relation between citations and articles of Nobel Laureates per research field and funding status. |
| Research field of Nobel Laureates and year | Funding status | α, scaling factor | R2 | t | N | 2α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemistry 2020 | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.65** | 0.61 | 2.85 | 88 | 3.13 |
| Funded | 1.56** | 0.62 | 2.70 | 65 | 2.94 | |
| Unfunded | 1.37*** | 0.24 | 3.72 | 45 | 2.58 | |
| Chemistry 2019 | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.22*** | 0.42 | 3.82 | 210 | 2.32 |
| Funded | 1.34** | 0.46 | 3.01 | 136 | 2.53 | |
| Unfunded | 1.04*** | 0.23 | 3.84 | 126 | 2.05 | |
| Chemistry 2019 + 2020 | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.36*** | 0.49 | 4.21 | 192 | 2.56 |
| Funded | 1.45*** | 0.52 | 3.67 | 131 | 2.73 | |
| Unfunded | 1.17*** | 0.26 | 4.81 | 107 | 2.25 | |
| Medicine 2020 | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.45*** | 0.56 | 3.66 | 171 | 2.73 |
| Funded | 1.44*** | 0.58 | 3.38 | 103 | 2.71 | |
| Unfunded | 1.62** | 0.49 | 3.08 | 110 | 3.07 | |
| Medicine 2019 | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.52*** | 0.49 | 5.28 | 278 | 2.86 |
| Funded | 1.42*** | 0.54 | 4.87 | 168 | 2.67 | |
| Unfunded | 1.71*** | 0.34 | 5.04 | 168 | 3.27 | |
| Medicine 2019 + 2020 | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.45*** | 0.51 | 5.20 | 410 | 2.73 |
| Funded | 1.38*** | 0.53 | 5.03 | 245 | 2.60 | |
| Unfunded | 1.60*** | 0.41 | 4.37 | 254 | 3.03 | |
| Physics 2020 | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.34 | 0.45 | 1.83 | 53 | 2.53 |
| Funded | 1.14 | 0.68 | 1.47 | 16 | 2.20 | |
| Unfunded | 1.37* | 0.33 | 2.13 | 51 | 2.58 | |
| Physics 2019 | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.42* | 0.51 | 2.17 | 50 | 2.67 |
| Funded | 1.34* | 0.87 | 2.03 | 15 | 2.53 | |
| Unfunded | 1.44* | 0.42 | 2.11 | 46 | 2.71 | |
| Physics 2019 + 2020 | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.26** | 0.40 | 2.35 | 85 | 2.39 |
| Funded | 1.27* | 0.83 | 2.16 | 23 | 2.41 | |
| Unfunded | 1.35* | 0.36 | 2.20 | 78 | 2.54 |
Note. ***α is significant at p-value <0.001; ** α is significant at p-value <0.01; * α is significant at p-value <0.05; Total = funded + unfunded; R2 is the coefficient of determination; 2α is the expected growth in the citation impact by doubling the number of articles; t is the student’s t statistic; N is the size of sample. |
4.2 Findings for publications and citations based on overall data in research fields of Medicine, Physics and Chemistry
Table 4. Research fields, status of funding, papers and citations with related percent value. |
| Research fields | Status of funding | Number of Papers | % | Citations | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | Funded + unfunded | 183,027 | 100.00 | 4,421,249 | 100.00 |
| Funded | 155,501 | 84.96 | 3,993,618 | 90.32 | |
| Unfunded | 27,526 | 15.04 | 427,631 | 9.68 | |
| Medicine | Funded + unfunded | 55,419 | 100.00 | 1,124,936 | 100.00 |
| Funded | 33,494 | 60 | 904,980 | 80 | |
| Unfunded | 21,925 | 40 | 219,956 | 20 | |
| Physics | Funded + unfunded | 127,409 | 100.00 | 2,414,447 | 100.00 |
| Funded | 104,041 | 81.65 | 2,144,540 | 88.82 | |
| Unfunded | 23,368 | 18.35 | 269,907 | 11.18 |
We also analyzed 55,419 articles with 1,124,936 citations in 377 journals of Medicine. Results show that 33,494 articles (60%) were related to funded studies with 80% of all citations. The 40% of articles were based on unfunded researches, with 219,956 of all citations (20%). Finally, we analyzed 127,409 articles with 2,144,450 citations in 387 journals of physics. In this field, 104,041 articles (81.65%) received research funding and the 88.82% of all citations, whereas 18.35% of articles were results of unfunded studies, and had the 11.18% of citations (Table 4 ).
Table 5. Estimated power-law relation between citations and articles in Chemistry, Medicine and Physics per funding status. |
| Research Fields | Funding status | α, scaling factor | R2 | t | N | 2α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.22*** | 0.77 | 8.77 | 533 | 2.34 |
| Funded | 1.25*** | 0.84 | 8.41 | 527 | 2.38 | |
| Unfunded | 0.94*** | 0.57 | 10.2 | 526 | 1.92 | |
| Medicine | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.11*** | 0.57 | 6.45 | 375 | 2.16 |
| Funded | 1.25*** | 0.83 | 5.61 | 364 | 2.37 | |
| Unfunded | 0.71*** | 0.5 | 9.28 | 373 | 1.64 | |
| Physics | Total (Funded + Unfunded) | 1.16*** | 0.78 | 7.35 | 385 | 2.24 |
| Funded | 1.17*** | 0.82 | 6.87 | 382 | 2.25 | |
| Unfunded | 1.02*** | 0.66 | 9.56 | 382 | 2.03 |
Note. ***α is significant at p-value <0.001; ** α is significant at p-value <0.01; * α is significant at p-value <0.05; Total=funded+unfunded; R2 is the coefficient of determination; 2α is the expected increase in the citations by number of articles; t is the student’s t statistic; N is the size of sample. |
4.3 Empirical properties and theoretical implications
Results of the analysis here suggest general characteristics of scientific diffusion and development (Table 6 ):
Table 6. Comparative analysis between publications, citations and scaling factors per funding status of articles in journals by Nobel Laureates and overall data in research fields of Chemistry, Medicine and Physics. |
| Nobel Laureates | Articles in journals based on funded researchers (%) | Articles in journals based on unfunded researchers (%) | Citations of articles based on funded researchers (%) | Citations of articles based on unfunded researchers (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nobel Laureates in Physics 2019 +2020 | 41.46 | 58.54 | 29.82 | 70.18 |
| Nobel Laureates in Chemistry 2019 +2020 | 64.90 | 35.10 | 76.12 | 24.68 |
| Nobel Laureates in Medicine 2019+2020 | 61.96 | 38.04 | 58.28 | 41.72 |
| α - scaling factor of Power-law relationship | α - Funded | α - Unfunded | ||
| Nobel Laureates in Physics 2019 +2020 | 1.27 | 1.35 | ||
| Nobel Laureates in Chemistry 2019 +2020 | 1.45 | 1.17 | ||
| Nobel Laureates in Medicine 2019+2020 | 1.38 | 1.60 | ||
| Research Fields | Articles in journals based on funded researchers (%) | Articles in journals based on unfunded researchers (%) | Citations of articles based on funded researchers (%) | Citations of articles based on unfunded researchers (%) |
| Physics | 81.65 | 18.35 | 88.82 | 11.18 |
| Chemistry | 84.96 | 15.04 | 90.32 | 9.68 |
| Medicine | 60.00 | 40.00 | 80.00 | 20.00 |
| α - scaling factor of Power-law relationship | α - Funded | α - Unfunded | ||
| Physics overall research field | 1.17 | 1.02 | ||
| Chemistry | 1.25 | 0.94 | ||
| Medicine | 1.25 | 0.71 |
□ 1st empirical property. Funded studies published in articles of journals receive more citations than (un)funded papers in physics, chemistry and medicine.
□ 2nd empirical property. Funded studies published in articles of journals have a super-linear growth of citations that generates a high Matthew effect given by a higher accumulation of citations with the growth of papers.
□ 3rd empirical property. Research funding increases the citations of articles related to scientific results mainly in fields oriented to applied research (chemistry and medicine) rather than fields oriented to basic research (physics).
Moreover, scientific observations of empirical evidence are:
● observation 1. Citations of funded studies published in articles of journals by Nobel Laureates in chemistry and medicine (sciences with more applied research) are higher than (un)funded papers, whereas citations of funded studies published in articles of journals by Nobel Laureates in physics are lower than (un)funded papers. A factor determining this effect can be that physics has a strong orientation to basic research and studies disseminate scientific results with citations regardless the research funding.
● observation 2. The relation between funded studies published in articles of journals and citations of Nobel Laureates has a super-linear growth of citations that is higher in chemistry and medicine (sciences more oriented to applied research) rather than physics having an orientation mainly to basic research.
● observation 3. The relation between (un)funded studies published in articles of journals and citations of Nobel Laureates in physics and medicine shows a super-linear growth of citations that is higher than published papers based on funded studies.
A principal theoretical implication of this study is that the nature of disciplines, more oriented to applied or basic research, seems to affect the growth of citations associated with research funding (Frame & Carpenter, 1979; Smith et al., 2000). In particular, physics is the most representative of basic science, based on a high degree of rigor and orientation to theoretical aspects in research activity: citations and diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities seem to have independent pathways from funding sponsors (Storer, 1967; Smith et al., 2000). Instead, chemistry and medicine are hybrid research fields with main aspects of applied research that receive a higher benefit from funding for potential practical and commercial applications of research activity in science and society (Boyack et al., 2005; Boyack, 2004; Fanelli & Glänzel, 2013; Kitcher, 2001; Klavans & Boyack, 2009, Simonton, 2004; Small, 1999; Smith et al., 2000). In addition, the critical role of research funding to support the growth of citations and related diffusion of knowledge in fields that are more oriented to applied research (e.g., chemistry and medicine rather than physics, which is oriented to basic research) can be also associated with opportunistic stakeholders that take advantage of new knowledge and inventions in these fields to develop them for solving problems and/or satisfy needs in society with consequential commercial implications (Ardito et al., 2021; Coccia, 2018a; 2020, 2022; Hollingsworth, 2006; Lewison & Dawson, 1998; Mannion et al., 2008; Small et al., 2017; Stephan, 1996).
5 Concluding remarks
This study explores the relationship between research funding and citations of scientific publications by Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry and medicine over 2019 and 2020 and the same relation considering data of overall these research fields. Our findings confirm previous studies by showing that research funding is a critical driving force of citations and diffusion of knowledge with scientific publications. The novelty of this study is that it shows a higher effect of research funding for citations mainly in more applied research fields (Mosleh et al., 2022; Roshani et al., 2021). Another new result is that research fields oriented to basic research (e.g., physics) have a diffusion of knowledge and citations also in unfunded studies published in aricles of journals regardless of sponsor, because of manifold factors, such as specificity nature of these sciences investigating universal topics, international collaboration networks, countries having global leadership in studies of specific fields, etc. (cf. Coccia, 2019; Cole & Cole, 1967; Dewett & Denisi, 2004; Makino, 1998; Saam & Reiter, 1999; Storer, 1967). This study clarifies the impact of research funding on citations, with a particular focus on publications by Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, and medicine from 2019 to 2020. Unlike earlier studies, such as Roshani et al., 2021 and Mosleh et al., 2022, which examined overall fields, we centered our attention here on the citation performance of leading scholars in vital fields of research. Our analysis underscores the potent influence of research funding on citation performance, particularly in applied research domains. These empirical results here also shed new light on the unique science dynamics related to each field, offering alternative perspectives for shaping research policies directed to effective funding allocation for emboldening a high societal and scientific impact. The novelty and significance of results just mentioned are systematized in general properties that can clarify some vital factors determining the scientific diffusion, namely: (1) funded studies published in articles of journals in the fields of physics, chemistry, and medicine consistently show a higher α (scaling factor) than unfunded researches published in articles. This aspect suggests that, across research fields, articles with funded research grow faster in terms of citations compared to those without research funding; (2) both in chemistry and in medicine, funded studies published in articles of journals have higher α values (1.25 for both) compared to physics (1.17). This finding indicates that fields focused on applied research might benefit more from research funding in terms of citation growth and science diffusion than fields oriented to basic research.
Moreover, what this study adds to the existing body of research related to documents and recorded knowledge on these topics, starting from publications and citations of Nobel Laureates, is that funding sponsors can be basic driving forces of scientific diffusion of studies published in articles written by leading scholars in natural sciences. However, results also reveal that while research funding is a critical driver of citations in scientific publications of applied research, other factors can support citations and diffusion of knowledge of unfunded studies published in articles of journals in sciences more oriented to basic research, such as physics. These findings can improve decisions of policymakers to allocate R&D investments with effectiveness across different research fields in order to foster the diffusion of science, technological applications and consequential positive industrial and societal impact.
Our study is rooted in a power-law relationship, which often surfaces in many complex systems, as in research fields, and signifies the presence of underlying multiplicative processes (Katz, 2016). For instance, the relationship between research funding and citations, especially concerning Nobel Laureates, is inherently complex. External variables such as the nature of the research topic, collaboration networks, affiliations, and even the influence of global events can sway diffusion of results and related citations. Our model endeavored to spotlight the most pivotal factors of science diffusion, but a singular model cannot explain the total variance of factors driving the scientific development.
Our results give decision-makers clearer insights into how funding can shape diffusion of scientific research, especially for contributors of leading scholars (e.g., Nobel Laureates). By highlighting the difference in citation performance between funded and unfunded research, this study offers valuable guidance for policy-makers, funding agencies, and institutions in designing effective science and research policies. While funding certainly boosts the visibility and impact of applied research, our findings also show that in basic research, like physics, even without financial support, the research can have a high impact because focus on universal problems in science and society. These results here suggest balanced funding strategies that value both applied and basic research.
5.1 Limitations
These conclusions, of course, are tentative. Although this study provides some interesting results, it has also some limitations:
1. Sources understudy may only capture certain aspects of the ongoing relation between citations and scientific production of Nobel Laureates and within overall research fields under study in the presence or not of funding sponsor. The study is based on data from the Web of Science, which may not detect all relevant publications and related citations of scholars, hence other databases should be used in future studies (e.g., Scopus, PubMed, Scite, etc.).
2. Confounding and situational factors could have an essential role in the patterns of citations associated with research funding that have to be further investigated (e.g., institutional aspects, networks of international collaboration, self-determination of leading scholars, etc. Coccia et al., 2015, Coccia & Bozeman, 2016; Pagliaro & Coccia, 2021).
3. Computational and statistical analyses here focus on specific years and disciplines and in the future the sample (Nobels and years) has to be extended to improve robustness of findings. In fact, the study here only considers articles published by Nobel Laureates in 2019 and 2020, which is a limited time frame, and may not be representative of the vast scientific production of all leading scholars over time. Additionally, the sample size focuses on Nobel Laureates in three disciplines and in the future it should be extended also to other ones, such as scholars having Nobel Prize in economics. Finally, the current exclusion of articles published after 2018 may limit the robustness of proposed results. Thus, generalizing the results of this research should be done with caution.
4. The study does not analyze the specific mechanisms through which research funding affects citations and diffusion of knowledge across different research fields, such as the role of leading funding sponsors in specific fields (e.g., in medicine Wellcome Trust, Bill and Melinda Gates, European Commission, etc.), the type of funding (public or private), as well as the amount of research funding over time.
5. A limitation also pertains to our selection of specific categories within the domains of “Medicine” and “Physiology” for data retrieval. Our choice was driven by a focus on areas directly aligned with the recognitions associated with Nobel laureates in these disciplines. This selective approach, although intended to maintain methodological precision, might have excluded certain articles and related citations of other fields of research relevant to a more expansive interpretation of results. Future studies have to consider a broader spectrum of research fields to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the relationship between research funding and citations across the wider realm of life sciences and not only.
5.2 Future research
Despite these limitations, the results here clearly illustrate the vital role of research funding for the growth of citations and consequential effects of a higher impact and diffusion of knowledge in science and society; in particular, the vital role of funding sponsors is for fields more oriented to applied research rather than basic one. Future research should consider more data of research fields over time and apply new approaches to reinforce the proposed findings of the relationship between research funding and citations of leading scholars and in research fields for improving the best practices of research policy considering the specificity of different scientific disciplines to foster scientific development and societal impact over time and space (Coccia et al., 2024a). Additionally, further research could explore the interaction of funding with other socioeconomic factors that contribute to high citations in different research fields, such as international research collaboration, emerging problems, new conflicts, new technologies (e.g., transformers in large language models, spintronic technologies, etc.), etc.
To conclude, there is a need for much more detailed research in these relations between research funding, scientific production, citations and consequential diffusion of knowledge among research fields and in society to explain the complex driving forces of the evolution of science to support effective implications of policy for the progress of human society.
Author contributions
Mario Coccia (mario.coccia@cnr.it) : Conceptualization and design (Equal), Formal analysis (Equal), Investigation (Lead), Project administration (Lead), Supervision (Lead), Validation (Lead), Visualization (Lead), Writing - original draft (Equal), Writing - review & editing (Equal); Saeed Roshani (Roshani@atu.ac.ir): Conceptualization and design (Equal), Data curation (Lead), Formal analysis (Equal), Methodology (Lead), Writing - original draft (Equal), Writing - review & editing (Equal).