Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2304.00862

The funding effect on citation and social attention: the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a case study

Pablo Dorta-González·María Isabel Dorta-González
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Purpose: Academic citation and social attention measure different dimensions in the impact of research results. We quantify the contribution of funding to both indicators considering the differences attributable to the research field and access type. Design/methodology/approach: Citation and social attention accumulated until the year 2021 of more than 367 thousand research articles published in the year 2018, are studied. We consider funding acknowledgements in the research articles. The data source is Dimensions and the units of study are research articles in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Findings: Most cited goals by researchers do not coincide with those that arouse greater social attention. A small proportion of articles accumulates a large part of the citations and most of the social attention. Both citation and social attention grow with funding. Thus, funded research has a greater probability of being cited in academic articles and mentioned in social media. Funded research receives on average two to three times more citations and 2.5 to 4.5 times more social attention than unfunded research. Moreover, the open access modalities gold and hybrid have the greatest advantages in citation and social attention due to funding. Originality: The joint evaluation of the effect of both funding and open access on social attention. Research limitations: Specific topics were studied in a specific period. Studying other topics and/or different time periods might result in different findings. Practical implications: When funding to publish in open or hybrid access journals is not available, it is advisable to self-archiving the pre-print or post-print version in a freely accessible repository. Social implications: Although cautiously, it is also advisable to consider the social impact of the research to complement the scientific impact in the evaluation of the research.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLstat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Pablo Dorta-González, María Isabel Dorta-González. 2023-04-03. The funding effect on citation and social attention: the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a case study. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-05-2022-0300

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

FMMD: A multimodal multidisciplinary dataset of open peer reviews from F1000Research

Automated scholarly paper review (ASPR) has entered the coexistence phase with traditional peer review, where artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly incorporated into real-world manuscript evaluation. In parallel, research on automated and AI-assisted peer review has proliferated. Despite this momentum, empirical progress remains constrained by several critical limitations in existing datasets. While reviewers routinely evaluate figures, tables, and complex layouts to assess scientific claims, most existing datasets remain overwhelmingly text-centric. This bias is reinforced by a narrow focus on data from computer science publications. Furthermore, existing datasets rarely preserve precise alignment between review comments and specific manuscript versions, obscuring the iterative relationship between peer review and manuscript evolution. In response, we introduce FMMD, a multimodal and multidisciplinary open peer review dataset curated from F1000Research. The dataset addresses the current limitations by integrating manuscript-level visual and structural data with version-specific reviewer reports and editorial decisions. By explicitly aligning review comments with the exact article version under review, FMMD enables granular analysis of the peer review lifecycle. Importantly, its coverage of F1000Research extends ASPR research beyond its traditional focus on computer science to a diverse range of scientific disciplines. FMMD supports a range of research tasks, including visual-semantic consistency classification, figure-related review comment generation, and editorial decision prediction based on multimodal manuscript inputs, thereby providing a comprehensive empirical resource for developing and evaluating multimodal ASPR systems and advancing peer review research.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

GitScholar: A Dataset for Predicting AI Research Impact from GitHub Engagement

With the rapid pace of AI research and the hundreds of daily new publications, staying up-to-date with the latest developments has become increasingly difficult. For researchers, quickly identifying impactful work is essential, yet manually reviewing each new publication is impractical. Automated impact prediction methods help address this challenge, usually by combining various information sources available, such as a paper's content or citation history. In this work, we propose using GitHub engagement as an additional source and demonstrate that it provides both a timely and accurate signal. To this end, we introduce GitScholar, a novel dataset that links GitHub activity from 444,000 repositories to over 558,000 AI arXiv papers. Our experiments show that GitHub reactions improve early prediction precision by up to 12% over a strong academic baseline. Additionally, we find that GitHub signal offers near-complete coverage of high-impact AI papers, and consistently correlates with future academic success. GitScholar is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/huawei-csl/GitScholar.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

The illusion of neutrality in metric-based research evaluation

Venue prestige and citation counts are two widely used, albeit imperfect, signals of research quality. When the two signals conflict, evaluators must decide how much weight to assign each. Yet, it remains unknown how researchers across disciplines trade off these two signals when evaluating research outcome. To fill this gap, we surveyed 869 researchers using paired choices between hypothetical departmental hiring rules that assigned different weights to venue prestige and citation counts, asking which would produce better science. Among 795 respondents whose choices were largely internally consistent, choices placed nearly equal aggregate weight on the two signals. This apparent balance concealed substantial individual heterogeneity: nearly two in five respondents occupied the most venue-heavy or citation-heavy intervals. Moreover, respondents on average chose more citation-heavy rules than they believed their departments used in hiring. By revealing the subjective judgments that arise when research indicators conflict, our findings reinforce calls for greater caution when quantitative indicators are used to evaluate research.

cs.DL↗