Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Who is Funding Indian Research? A look at major funding sources acknowledged in Indian research papers

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper quantifies funded Indian research, finding 54.79% of publications acknowledge support, led by DST at 22.44%.

desk verdict A useful first national baseline for Indian funding acknowledgements, but the headline percentages rest on WoS metadata and an unreleased manual disambiguation that need validation before the numbers are treated as hard policy facts. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15045 v1 pith:Y2T7KF3I submitted 2024-11-22 cs.DL

Vivek Kumar Singh , Prashasti Singh , Anurag Kanaujia , Abhirup Nandy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DL
keywords researchfundingIndiaacknowledgementWebofSciencebibliometricsDSTCSIRANRF
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to measure how much of India's research output is visibly supported by funding agencies, using Web of Science publication records from 2011 to 2022 as a proxy. It reports that 54.79% of 9,20,284 Indian articles and reviews acknowledge funding, and identifies the Department of Science and Technology, CSIR, and UGC as the dominant supporters. The findings matter because they provide a first quantitative baseline for which agencies actually underwrite Indian science, and they suggest that government, not private, funding dominates. The authors connect these patterns to the upcoming Anusandhan National Research Foundation, which intends to shift funding toward private investment.

What carries the argument

The analytical engine is the Web of Science 'Funding Orgs' metadata field, treated as a proxy for whether a publication received funding. The paper tabulates presence of this field to classify publications as funded or non-funded, then extracts and manually disambiguates agency-name variants (e.g., 'DST', 'DST India', 'DST Delhi' all become 'DST') to attribute each funded paper to one or more agencies. That step converts noisy acknowledgement strings into a clean agency-level ledger, from which the share computations and rankings follow.

What would settle it

Compare the same 2011–2022 Indian article set in Scopus, which has its own funding-acknowledgement field, against the Web of Science-derived list; if the funded-publication share differs by more than a few points, the Web of Science metadata misses a systematic set of acknowledgements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper finds that 5,04,268 of 9,20,284 (54.79%) Indian articles and reviews in the Web of Science core collection for 2011–2022 carry funding acknowledgement data. Among funded publications, Indian agencies account for 87.63% of the total, with DST (22.44%), CSIR (16.32%), UGC (14.43%), SERB (8.28%), and DBT (6.23%) leading. Foreign funders, chiefly NIH, UKRI, and NSF, support a smaller but substantial share (73.60% of funded publications, counting overlaps), indicating widespread international collaboration. The paper also reports that India's funded-publication share (about 55%) sits below China (~86%), Japan (~71%), the US (~68%), Germany (~69%), and England (~69%). On the public–private axis, almost all significant funders are public bodies; private foundations and firms appear in small numbers, mostly foreign.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the presence or absence of funding information in a Web of Science record faithfully indicates whether and by whom a paper was funded, and the paper itself concedes that missing metadata can make funded work appear unfunded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • India's funded-publication share staying near 52–58% across 2011–2022, while its total output grows at a 9.30% CAGR, implies funding acknowledgements are keeping pace with output rather than driving a disproportionate expansion.
  • Since 87.63% of funded publications acknowledge Indian agencies, the bulk of Indian research support is domestic and public; this contradicts any assumption that foreign or private money underwrites most Indian science.
  • The pattern of private funders being rare and mostly foreign (BMGF, Sloan, pharmaceutical firms) suggests that policies relying on private-sector R&D investment, like ANRF, start from a low base.
  • DST's share (22.44%) being the highest aligns with its extramural R&D expenditure being the largest among Indian agencies, suggesting a loose link between money spent and papers acknowledged.
  • The year-wise dip after 2018 to 52.68% in 2022 could signal changes in acknowledgement behavior or funding intake, but the paper does not model why.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the missing-funding-metadata rate is systematically higher for certain fields or institution types, the 54.79% overall share could substantially understate the true funded fraction; a next step would be to validate against Scopus or national datasets.
  • The paper's reliance on the WoS 'Funding Orgs' field means papers funded by agencies but not acknowledged by authors are invisible; the observed ranking of DST, CSIR, and UGC could partly be an artifact of acknowledgement norms rather than the actual distribution of funding.
  • The 73.60% foreign-funder share overlapping with 87.63% Indian-funder share implies high co-funding; analyzing the co-funding matrix could reveal which Indian agencies typically pair with NIH, UKRI, or NSF, offering a testable extension.
  • If ANRF shifts funding toward private entities, a natural follow-up is whether the share of funded publications acknowledging private agencies rises; the paper's baseline enables that measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper quantifies acknowledged research funding in Indian publications indexed in the Web of Science core collection (articles and reviews) during 2011–2022. Using the WoS 'Funding Orgs' field, it classifies 504,268 of 920,284 publications (54.79%) as funded and the rest as non-funded. It then identifies the most frequently acknowledged agencies, reporting DST (22.44% of funded publications), CSIR (16.32%), UGC (14.43%), SERB (8.28%), and DBT (6.23%) as the leading Indian agencies, and NIH, UKRI, NSF, and NSFC as notable foreign agencies. The paper also categorizes agencies by national versus international and public versus private status, compares India's funded share with selected countries, and discusses implications for the Anusandhan National Research Foundation.

Significance. If the measurement is reliable, this is a useful first comprehensive description of the funding-acknowledgment landscape in Indian WoS-indexed publications, with direct policy relevance. The paper is careful to describe the WoS query, the document-type restriction, and the broad steps of the analysis, and it explicitly acknowledges the limitation that missing funding metadata leads to publications being counted as non-funded. However, the central quantitative claim rests on two unvalidated assumptions: that absence of a WoS 'Funding Orgs' entry reliably indicates the absence of an acknowledged funder, and that the manual agency-name disambiguation is complete and correct. The paper does not report the degree to which funded publications were matched to the 1,407 retained agencies, and it does not release the disambiguation mapping or any validation sample. These issues affect the headline percentage, the year-wise trend, and the agency rankings, so they are load-bearing for the paper's contribution rather than merely presentation problems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Data and Methodology (funded/non-funded classification) and Limitations] The central figure of 54.79% funded publications treats a missing WoS 'Funding Orgs' entry as equivalent to a publication not acknowledging funding. The Limitations section correctly concedes that 'funding metadata is missing for some other reason, the publication is not counted as an instance of funded publication even if it may have received funding support,' but the paper never quantifies this risk. Since Table 1 and the cross-country comparison in Fig. 2 depend on the completeness of this field, the authors should provide a sensitivity check, for example a random-sample audit of full-text funding acknowledgments in records with an empty 'Funding Orgs' field, and report whether missingness varies by year, publisher, or subject category. Without such a check, the year-wise trend and the comparison to other countries could reflect metadata-coverage differences rather than actual funding differences.
  2. [Data and Methodology (agency extraction and manual disambiguation) and Table 2] The agency-level shares in Table 2 depend on a manual disambiguation of agency-name variants and a threshold of at least 50 supported publications, but the paper does not report how many of the 504,268 funded records were actually matched to at least one of the 1,407 retained agencies. Publications acknowledging only a below-threshold funder, or a funder whose name was mis-cleaned, remain in the denominator of funded publications yet contribute to no agency's count, which distorts the percentage shares. The authors should report the coverage of the matching step, release the disambiguation mapping (or a substantial sample of it), and validate the mapping through independent annotation or a random-sample check against full-text acknowledgments. Without these, the ranking of DST, CSIR, UGC, SERB, and DBT cannot be independently verified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Results (paragraph on Indian and foreign agency counts)] The text reports 441,988 publications funded by Indian agencies (87.63% of funded publications) and 371,163 funded by foreign agencies (73.60%), which together exceed the 504,268 total; the authors should explicitly report the number of publications acknowledging both Indian and foreign agencies and clarify whether these percentages use total funded publications or matched publications as the denominator.
  2. [Discussion and Conclusion] The sentence in the Conclusion, 'To study analysed the research publications,' contains a grammatical error and should read 'The study analysed...'.
  3. [References and Figure 2] Reference 46 says 'Assessed on Aug 21, 2024' but should say 'Accessed'; also, Figure 2 and the surrounding text use 'England' for what may be the United Kingdom in WoS country-level data, so the authors should clarify the WoS country-field definition.
  4. [Results (private funding agencies)] In the discussion of private agencies, 'Merk' should presumably be 'Merck'; also, the abbreviations in Table 2 such as 'KSCSTE' and 'DOST' should be expanded or defined in a note for readers outside India.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a descriptive bibliometric measurement whose counts are directly read from Web of Science funding metadata.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (54.79% of Indian WoS articles/reviews acknowledge funding; DST, CSIR, UGC, SERB, DBT are the top agencies) are direct aggregates of the Web of Science 'Funding Orgs' and related metadata fields after manual name disambiguation. There is no derived quantity, fitted parameter, or model prediction; the output is the input metadata summed and categorized. The only judgment calls are the manual clubbing of name variants (e.g., 'DST, DST India, DST Delhi' into DST) and the classification of agencies as Indian/foreign and public/private, none of which are defined in terms of the headline results. The paper explicitly acknowledges in the Limitations that publications with missing funding metadata or absent acknowledgements were counted as non-funded even if they may have received funding; this is an honest statement of a data-completeness limitation, not a circular step. Self-citations (e.g., ref. 47 on WoS journal coverage, ref. 14 on an Indian science portal) are used only as background or methodological context and are not load-bearing for the central counts. No circularity pattern applies: there is no self-definitional reduction, no fitted input renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study is descriptive, so it introduces no fitted constants or new entities; its main burden is the validity of bibliometric metadata and hand-built name mappings.

free parameters (1)
  • minimum publication threshold = 50
    Agencies with fewer than 50 acknowledged publications were excluded from the analyzed set of 1407 agencies, which directly determines which agencies appear in Table 2 and the derived shares.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption WoS 'Funding Orgs' field contains reliable funding acknowledgement data
    The entire funded/non-funded split (RQ1) is computed from presence/absence of this field; the paper acknowledges in Limitations that missing metadata causes undercounting.
  • domain assumption A publication not acknowledging funding did not receive funding
    Non-funded TP is defined as records with no funding information; this conflates missing metadata with un-funded research.
  • domain assumption Web of Science core collection is a representative proxy for Indian research output
    All analyses use WoS only; the study acknowledges WoS does not index all publications (Limitations, ref [47]).
  • domain assumption Manual disambiguation of agency name variants is accurate
    Agency counts rely on collapsing variants like DST, DST India, DST Delhi; no inter-coder validation is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Who is Funding Indian Research? A look at major funding sources acknowledged in Indian research papers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y2T7KF3I

@misc{pith2026241115045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Who is Funding Indian Research? A look at major funding sources acknowledged in Indian research papers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y2T7KF3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15045}
}
read the original abstract

Science and scientific research activities, in addition to the involvement of the researchers, require resources like research infrastructure, materials and reagents, databases and computational tools, journal subscriptions and publication charges etc. In order to meet these requirements, researchers try to attract research funding from different funding sources, both intramural and extramural. Though some recent reports provide details of the amount of funding provided by different funding agencies in India, it is not known what quantum of research output resulted from such funding. This paper, therefore, attempts to quantify the research output produced with the funding provided by different funding agencies to Indian researchers. The major funding agencies that supported Indian research publications are identified and are further characterized in terms of being national or international, and public or private. The analytical results not only provide a quantitative estimate of funded research from India and the major funding agencies supporting the research, but also discusses the overall context of research funding in India, particularly in the context of upcoming operationalization of Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    National Science Board, National Science Foundation. 2021. Publications Output: U.S. and International Comparisons. Science and Engineering Indicators 2022. NSB-2021-4. Alexandria, VA. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20214/

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    (2023) - Research and Development

    Ritchie, H., Mathieu, E., & Roser, M. (2023) - Research and Development. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/research-and- development Accessed on July 30, 2024

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    UNESCO, How much does your country invest in R&D?, Institute of Statistics, https://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/ Accessed on 15 March 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Research & Development Statistics at a Glance 2022-23

    DST. Research & Development Statistics at a Glance 2022-23. Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India, New Delhi, 2023. https://dst.gov.in/document/reports/rd-statistics-glance-2022-23

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Accessed from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php?title=R%26D_expenditure#R.26D_expenditure_by_source_of_fund s Accessed on 29 July 2024

    Eurostat Statistics explained, R&D expenditure , 2024. Accessed from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php?title=R%26D_expenditure#R.26D_expenditure_by_source_of_fund s Accessed on 29 July 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    The Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act,

    Ministry of Law and Justice, GoI . The Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act,

    work page

  7. [7]

    , Status of India in science and technology as reflected in its publication output in the Scopus international database, 1996–2006

    Gupta, B.M., Dhawan, S.M. , Status of India in science and technology as reflected in its publication output in the Scopus international database, 1996–2006. Scientometrics, 2009, 80, 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2083-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2083-y 1996

  8. [8]

    Scientometrics, 2014 , 100, 471 -481

    Panat, R., On the data and analysis of the research output of India and China: India has significantly fallen behind China. Scientometrics, 2014 , 100, 471 -481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1236-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1236-4 2014

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Confederation of Indian Industry, Indian Citation Index, New Delhi

    CII, Glimpses of Research Productivity of Indian Universities and Research Institutions . Confederation of Indian Industry, Indian Citation Index, New Delhi. 2016. https://www.indiancitationindex.com/htms/CII-ICI-FinalReport2016.pdf

    2016

  2. [10]

    , A three -dimensional bibliometric evaluation of recent re search in India

    Prathap, G. , A three -dimensional bibliometric evaluation of recent re search in India. Scientometrics, 2017, 110, 1085–1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2181-1

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Research output of Indian institutions during 2011–2016: Quality and quantity perspective

    Rajan, K.S., Swaminathan . S., and Vaidhyasubramaniam. S., "Research output of Indian institutions during 2011–2016: Quality and quantity perspective." Curr. Sci., 2018, 114(4), 740-746. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26495232

    2011

  4. [12]

    Prathap, G., Comparative evaluation of research in IISc, IITs, NUS and NTU using CWTS Leiden Ranking 2017 data. Curr. Sci., 2018, 114(3), 442-443

    2017

  5. [13]

    and Bhattacharya, S., India’s rank and global share in scientific research : how data drawn from different databases can produce varying outcomes? J

    Singh, P., Singh, V.K., Arora, P. and Bhattacharya, S., India’s rank and global share in scientific research : how data drawn from different databases can produce varying outcomes? J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2020, 80(4), 336–346

    2020

  6. [14]

    K., Nandy, A., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Singh, A., Lathabai, H

    Singh, V. K., Nandy, A., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Singh, A., Lathabai, H. H., ... & Kanaujia, A., Indian Science Reports: a web-based scientometric portal for mapping Indian research competencies at overall and institutional levels. Scientometrics, 2022, 127(7), 4227-4236. htt...

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    , Mapping the research output from Indian states

    Kanaujia, A., Nandy, A., Singh, P., & Singh, V.K. , Mapping the research output from Indian states. Curr. Sci., 2023, 124(11), 1245-1255. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v124/i11/1245-1255

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Current Science , 2022 , 123(9), 1082 -1088

    Kanaujia, A., Singh, P., Nandy, A., & Singh, V.K., Research contribution of major centrally funded institution systems of India. Current Science , 2022 , 123(9), 1082 -1088. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v123/i9/1082-1088

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    An impact-citations- exergy (iCX) trajectory anal ysis of leading research institutions in India

    Nishy, P., Panwar, Y., Prasad, S., Mandal, G.K., and Prathap. G., "An impact-citations- exergy (iCX) trajectory anal ysis of leading research institutions in India." Scientometrics, 2012, 91(1), 245-251

    2012

  10. [18]

    The performance of research -intensive higher educational institutions in India

    Prathap, G. , "The performance of research -intensive higher educational institutions in India." Curr. Sci. 2014, 107(3), 389-396. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24103492

    2014

  11. [19]

    Ranking of Indian universities for their research output and quality using a new performance index

    Prathap, G, and Gupta., B.M., "Ranking of Indian universities for their research output and quality using a new performance index." Curr. Sci., 2009, 97(6), 751-752

    2009

  12. [20]

    Benchmarking research performance of the IITs using

    Prathap, G., "Benchmarking research performance of the IITs using" Web of Science" and" Scopus" bibliometric databases." Curr. Sci. 2013, 105(8), 1134-1138. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24098220

    2013

  13. [21]

    and Muhuri, P.K., Research performance of indian institutes of technology

    Banshal, S.K., Singh, V.K., Basu, A. and Muhuri, P.K., Research performance of indian institutes of technology. Curr. Sci., 2017, 112(5). 923-932. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24912482

    2017

  14. [22]

    Contemporary Perspectives, 2007, 1(2), 58-

    Abrol, D., Publicly funded research and policy reforms in India: Lessons from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CS IR). Contemporary Perspectives, 2007, 1(2), 58-

    2007

  15. [23]

    SRELS Journal of Information Management, 2017, 54(4), 165

    Mukherjee, B., Research in Indian CSIR laboratories: A bibliometric study. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 2017, 54(4), 165. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2017/v54i4/118103

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    , and Kumari, S., Research performance of National Institutes of Technology (NITs) of India during 2001–2010: a bibliometric analysis

    Bala, A. , and Kumari, S., Research performance of National Institutes of Technology (NITs) of India during 2001–2010: a bibliometric analysis. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 2013, 50(5), 555-572. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2013/v50i5/43774

    2001 doi

  17. [25]

    , Research Performance of the National Institutes of Technology in India

    Banshal, S.K., Solanki, T., and Singh, V.K. , Research Performance of the National Institutes of Technology in India. Curr. Sci., 2018, 115(11), 2025-2036. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26978548

    2018

  18. [26]

    , Research Competitiveness of Indian Institutes of Science Education & Research (IISERs)

    Solanki, T., Uddin, A., and Singh, V.K. , Research Competitiveness of Indian Institutes of Science Education & Research (IISERs). Curr. Sci., 2016 , 110(3), 307 -310. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24906774

    2016

  19. [27]

    Libr Philos Pract

    Suresh, N., and Thanuskodi, S., Research output of ICAR -indian institute of horticultural research: A scientometric study. Libr Philos Pract. , 2019, 2166. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2166/

    2019

  20. [28]

    Tyagi, S., Unveiling research productivity of premier IIMs of India (2010–2021). Libr. Hi Tech, 2024, 42(1), 350-379. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-05-2022-0262

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    Singh, P., Nandy, A., & Singh, V. K. , A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Output from Indian Institutes of Management. DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol. , 2022, 42(6), 364-376. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.42.6.18316

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    and Nundy, S., The research output from Indian medical institutions between 2005 and 2014

    Ray, S., Shah, I. and Nundy, S., The research output from Indian medical institutions between 2005 and 2014. Current Medicine Research and Practice , 2016, 6(2), 49 -58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmrp.2016.04.002

    2005 doi

  23. [31]

    and Jeyshankar, R., Research productivity of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS): a scientometric analysis

    Nishavathi, E. and Jeyshankar, R., Research productivity of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS): a scientometric analysis. Libr. Philos. Pract., 2018, 1084, 1-20. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1804/

    2018

  24. [32]

    and Sriram, P., Mega private universities in India: prospects and promise for world-class perform ance

    Prathap, G. and Sriram, P., Mega private universities in India: prospects and promise for world-class perform ance. Curr. Sci., 2017, 2165-2167. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26494930

    2017

  25. [33]

    , Comparing research performance of private universities in India with IITs, central universities and NITs

    Banshal, S.K., Singh, V.K., & Mayr, P. , Comparing research performance of private universities in India with IITs, central universities and NITs. Curr. Sci., 2019, 116(8), 1304-

    2019

  26. [34]

    , R&D funding in India: An empirical study

    Mouly, V.S., & Sankaran, J.K. , R&D funding in India: An empirical study. Prometheus, 1999, 17(1), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109029908629394

    1999 doi

  27. [35]

    , Retentions, relations and innovation: the financing of R&D in India

    Majumdar, S.K. , Retentions, relations and innovation: the financing of R&D in India. Economics of Innovation and New Technology , 2010 , 20(3), 233 –257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590903516335

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Srinivasaiah, R., Renuka, S.D., & Prasad, U.K., Impact of DST-FIST funding on research publications in India (2000 -2020): A bibliometric investigation. J Sci. Res., 2021, 10(2), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.10.2.28

    2000 doi

  29. [37]

    Dandona, L., Dandona, R., Kumar, G.A., Cowling, K., Titus, P., Katoch, V.M., & Swaminathan, S., Mapping of health research funding in India. Natl. Med. J. India., 2017, 30(6), 309-316. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-258X.239069

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    , Measuring the research funding landscape: A case study of BRICS nations

    Shueb, S., & Gul, S. , Measuring the research funding landscape: A case study of BRICS nations. Glob. Knowl. Mem. Commun. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-08-2022- 0192

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    , An analysis of global research funding from subject field and funding agencies perspectives in the G9 countries

    Huang, M.H., & Huang, M.J. , An analysis of global research funding from subject field and funding agencies perspectives in the G9 countries. Scientometrics, 2018. 115(2), 833-

    2018

  32. [40]

    International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 2023 , 47(2), 312 -317

    Sami, N., Rethinking the research funding process: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 2023 , 47(2), 312 -317. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.13148

    2023

  33. [41]

    , Globalization of R&D and open innovation: linkages of foreign R&D centers in Indi a

    Patra, S.K., & Krishna, V.V. , Globalization of R&D and open innovation: linkages of foreign R&D centers in Indi a. J. Open Innov.: Technol. Mark. Complex. , 2015. 1(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-015-0008-6

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    Asia Pac

    Hoffman, R.J., Knowledge, not funding is the most important research resource. Asia Pac. J. Med. Toxicol., 2013, 2(2), 77. https://doi.org/10.22038/apjmt.2013.1002

    2013

  35. [43]

    R., & Gala, B

    Manu, T. R., & Gala, B. , Research data management: An evaluation of Indian research funding agencies’ policies and guidelines. Library Herald , 2020 , 58(4), 42 -65. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-2469.2020.00030.9

    2020

  36. [44]

    , Why do academics do unfunded research? Resistance, compliance and identity in the UK neo -liberal university

    Edwards, R. , Why do academics do unfunded research? Resistance, compliance and identity in the UK neo -liberal university. Studies in Higher Education, 2020, 47(4), 904–

    2020

  37. [45]

    , Who pays for published research?

    Stein, M.D., Rubenstein, L., & Wachtel, T.J. , Who pays for published research?. JAMA, 1993, 269(6), 781–782. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1993.03500060081035

    1993

  38. [46]

    Ministry of Science and Technology, New Delhi

    PIB, The Minister says, Anusandhan National Research Foundation is aimed at equitable funding of scientific research and for bringing in greater private participation . Ministry of Science and Technology, New Delhi. 2023. Assessed on Aug 21, 2024 from https://pib.gov.in/PressR...

    2023

  39. [47]

    and Mayr, P., The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis

    Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J. and Mayr, P., The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 2021. 126, 5113-5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5

    2021 doi

  40. [88]

    https://doi.org/10.1177/223080750700100203

    doi

  41. [847]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2677-y

    doi

  42. [914]

    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1817891

    2020

  43. [1313]

    https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v116/i8/1304-1313

    doi

  44. [2023]

    CG -DL-E-14082023-248091

    Gazette of India, New Delhi. CG -DL-E-14082023-248091. https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/NRF.pdf

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.