Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 10, 2017, Pages

  Paul Hus, Adèle ^a   Díaz Faes, Adrián A ^b   Sainte Marie, Maxime ^a   Desrochers, Nadine ^a   Costas, Rodrigo ^c,d   Larivière, Vincent ^a,e  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA   (Spain)

^c LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

^e UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; CLINICAL MEDICINE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS; EDITOR; FIELD WORK; FUNDING; HUMAN; PHYSICS; PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIOLOGY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; SCIENCE;

FINANCIAL SUPPORT; SCIENCE;

EID: 85030629424     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185578     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Crawford ET, Biderman AD. Paper money: Trends of research sponsorship in American sociology journals. Social Science Information. 1970; 9 (1): 50–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847000900103
2. Costas R, van Leeuwen TN. Approaching the « reward triangle»: General analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and « peer interactive communication» in scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012; 63 (8): 1647–1661.
3. Lewison G, Markusova V. The evaluation of Russian cancer research. Research Evaluation. 2010; 19 (2): 129–144. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210X510098
4. Tang L, Hu G, Liu W. Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23713
5. Rigby J. Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgments really predict research impact? Scientometrics. 2013; 94 (1): 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0779-5 PMID: 23704798
6. Zhou P, Tian H. Funded collaboration research in mathematics in China. Scientometrics. 2014; 99 (3): 695–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1212-4
7. Edge D. Quantitative measures of communication in science: A critical review. History of Science. 1979; 17 (2): 102–134.
8. Paul-Hus A, Mongeon P, Sainte-Marie M, Larivière V. The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgments. Journal of Informetrics. 2017; 11 (1): 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.005
9. Patel N. Collaboration in the professional growth of American sociology. Social Science Information. 1973; 12 (6): 77–92.
10. Cronin B. The Hand of Science: Academic Writing and its Rewards. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press; 2005.
11. Laudel G. What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation. 2002; 11(1):3–15.
12. Marušić A, Bošnjak L, Jerončić A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6 (9): e23477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023477 PMID: 21931600
13. Cronin B, Weaver S. The praxis of acknowledgment: From bibliometrics to influmetrics. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. 1995; 18(2): 172–177.
14. Genette G. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation (Jane E. Lewin, trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
15. Desrochers N, Paul-Hus A, Larivière V. The angle sum theory: Exploring the literature on acknowledgments in scholarly communication. In Sugimoto C. R. (Ed.), Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication. De Gruyter Mouton; 2016. pp. 225–247.
16. Desrochers N, Paul-Hus A, Pecoskie J. Five decades of gratitude: A meta-synthesis of acknowledgments research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23903
17. McCain KW. Communication, competition, and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information in Genetics. Science, Technology & Human Values. 1991; 16 (4):491–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600404
18. Cronin B, McKenzie G, Rubio L, Weaver-Wozniak S. Accounting for influence: Acknowledgments in contemporary sociology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1993; 44 (7): 406–412.
19. Cronin B, Shaw D, La Barre K. A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2003; 54 (9): 855–871.
20. Salager-Meyer F, Alcaraz-Ariza MÁ, Luzardo Briceño M, Jabbour G. Scholarly gratitude in five geographical contexts: a diachronic and cross-generic approach of the acknowledgment paratext in medical discourse (1950–2010). Scientometrics. 2010; 86 (3): 763–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0329-y
21. Cronin B, Shaw D, LaBarre K. Visible, less visible, and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in 20th century chemistry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2004; 55 (2):160–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10353
22. Giles CL, Councill IG. Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2004; 101 (51): 17599–17604. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0407743101 PMID: 15601767
23. Khabsa M, Treeratpituk P, Giles CL. AckSeer: A repository and search engine for automatically extracted acknowledgments from digital libraries. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2012. pp.185–194. (JCDL ‘12). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2232817.2232852
24. Khabsa M, Koppman S, Giles CL. Towards building and analyzing a social network of acknowledgments in scientific and academic documents. In: Social Computing, Behavioral - Cultural Modeling and Prediction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2012. pp.357–364.
25. Diaz-Faes AA, Bordons M. Acknowledgments in scientific publications: Presence in Spanish science and text patterns across disciplines. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014; 65 (9): 1834–1849. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23081
26. Birnholtz JP. What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2006; 57 (13): 1758–1770.
27. Pontille D. La signature scientifique: Une sociologie pragmatique de l’attribution. Paris: CNRS Éditions; 2004.
28. Larivière V, Desrochers N, Macaluso B, Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A, Sugimoto CR. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science. 2016; 46 (3): 417–435.
29. Paul-Hus A, Desrochers N, Costas R. Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgment data in Web of Science. Scientometrics. 2016; 108 (1): 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1953-y
30. National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators. Chapter 5: Academic Research and Development. Data and Terminology [Internet]. 2006. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c5/c5s3.htm#sb1
31. Marcus MP, Marcinkiewicz MA, Santorini B. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics. 1993; 19 (2): 313–330.
32. Marcus MP, Kim G, Marcinkiewicz MA, MacIntyre R, Bies A, Ferguson M, Katz K, Schasberger B. The Penn Treebank: annotating predicate structure. In Proceedings of the workshop on Human Language Technology, March 08–11, 1994, Plainsboro NJ; 1994. pp.114-119
33. Bird S, Klein E, Loper E. Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media; 2009.
34. Toutatnove K, Klein D, Manning C, Singer N. Feature-rich Part-Of-Speech Tagging with a Cyclic Dependency Network. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL; 2003. pp.252-259.
35. Toutanova K, Manning CD. Enriching the knowledge sources used in a maximum entropy Part-Of-Speech Tagger. In Proceedings of the Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora; 2000. pp.63-70.
36. Kim SN, Baldwin T, Kan MY. Evaluation N-gram based evaluation metrics for automatic keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), Beijing; 2010. pp.572-580.
37. Lukas J, Pockrandt A-M, Seennann S, Sharif M, Runge F, Pohlers S, et al. Enzyme enhancers for the treatment of fabry and pompe disease. Molecular Therapy. 2015; 23(3):456–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2014.224 PMID: 25409744
38. Zhang R, Li R, Wang J, Wang S, Zhang M, Hu X, et al. Identification, characterization and expression profiling of the Tollip gene in Yesso scallop (Patinopecten yessoensis). Genes and Genetic Systems. 2015; 90(2):99–108. https://doi.org/10.1266/ggs.90.99 PMID: 26399769
39. Pouget JG, Goncalves VF, Nurmi EL, Laughlin CP, Mallya KS, McCracken JT, et al. Investigation of TSPO variants in schizophrenia and antipsychotic treatment outcomes. Pharmacogenomics. 2015; 16 (1):5–22. https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs.14.158 PMID: 25560467
40. Sarbova V, Koschella A, Cheng F, Kelly SM, Heinze T. Studies on the sulfation of cellulose alpha-lipoate and ability of the sulfated product to stabilize colloidal suspensions of gold nanoparticles. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2015; 124:117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.01.080 PMID: 25839801
41. Benzécri JP. Correspondance Analysis Handbook. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1992.
42. Greenacre M. Correspondence Analysis in Practice, Second Edition. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2007.
43. Beh EH, Lombardo R. Correspondence Analysis: Theory, Practice and New Strategies. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, coll. Wiley Series in Probabilities and Statistics; 2014.
44. Vicente-Villardón JL. MultBiplot: A package for Multivariate Analysis using Biplots. Departamento de Estadística, Universidad de Salamanca [Software]; 2014. http://biplot.usal.es/ClassicalBiplot/index.html
45. Xu X, Tan AM, Zhao SX. Funding ratios in social science: the perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences. Scientometrics. 2015; 104 (3): 673–684.
46. Bourdieu P. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 1975; 14 (6): 19–47.
47. Henriksen D. The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics. 2016; 107 (2): 455–476. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x
48. Larivière V, Gingras Y, Sugimoto CR, Tsou A. Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2015; 66(7):1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23266
49. Ponomariov B, Boardman C. What is co-authorship? Scientometrics. 2016; 109(3):1939-1963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2127-7
50. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007; 316(5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099 PMID: 17431139
51. Paul-Hus, A, Díaz-Faes A, Desrochers N, Costas R, Sainte-Marie M, Macaluso B, Larivière V. Beyond funding: What can acknowledgments reveal about credit distribution in science? In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. València, Spain; 2016.
52. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations. 2015. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
53. Pasiarski M, Grywalska E, Kosmaczewska A, Gozdz S, Steckiewicz P, Garus B, et al. Assessment of peripheral blood and bone marrow T, NK, NKT and dendritic cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Postepy Higieny I Medycyny Doswiadczalnej. 2015; 69:1435–1442. PMID: 27259215
54. Novick D, Hong J, Montgomery W, Duenas H, Gado M, Haro JM. Predictors of remission in the treatment of major depressive disorder: real-world evidence from a 6-month prospective observational study. Neuropsychiatry Disease and Treatment. 2015; 11:197–205.
55. Hefter MH, Renkl A, Riess W, Schmid S, Fries S, Berthold K. Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values. Learning and Instruction. 2015; 39:11–22.