A A A

Bibliometric analysis of research grants

The evaluation of the research grants program included two bibliometric analyses.  Five bibliometric indicators of scientific performance were measured: number of papers, average of relative citations (ARC), number of papers in the 5% most cited papers, average of relative impact factors (ARIF), and specialization index (SI). These studies have generated a wealth of information pertaining to the scientific output and impact of the research grants program, which has informed CCS decisions regarding future program design.

Phase I

The first analysis quantified the scientific output of researchers who received an NCIC research grant between 1994-2006 (includes Canadian Cancer Society and Terry Fox Foundation funding). The output of researchers receiving funding through the NCIC was also benchmarked against Canadian researchers as a whole and those funded by the National Cancer Institute (US).

Key findings:
  • Researchers funded through the NCIC authored nearly half of all Canadian papers published in cancer-related journals.
  • Papers published by researchers funded through the NCIC had a higher scientific impact than papers published by other Canadian researchers.
  • Researchers funded through the NCIC produced, on average, nearly as many papers annually as NCI researchers despite receiving about five times less funding per researcher.
  • Researchers were more productive while receiving funding through the NCIC than when not receiving funding through the NCIC.
  • Papers published by researchers while receiving funding through the NCIC had a higher scientific impact than when not receiving funding through the NCIC.

Phase II

The second analysis quantified the scientific production of researchers who received individual research grants (funded by Canadian Cancer Society only) between 1994-2006 while they were receiving funding and not receiving funding and compared their scientific production to Canadian researchers as a whole. Additionally, it provided a comparative analysis between a group of researchers who received individual research grants and another group that received team research grants (includes Canadian Cancer Society and Terry Fox Foundation funding).

Key findings:
  • Papers published by Canadian Cancer Society supported researchers had a higher scientific impact than papers published by other Canadian researchers.
  • Papers published by Canadian Cancer Society supported researchers had a higher scientific impact while they were receiving Canadian Cancer Society funding than when they were not receiving Canadian Cancer Society funding.
  • Canadian Cancer Society supported researchers published 33% of the Canadian papers within the subfield of cancer research.
  • Canadian Cancer Society supported researchers were more productive while receiving funding from the Canadian Cancer Society than when not receiving Canadian Cancer Society funding.
  • Researchers who received team research grants were more productive and their published papers had higher scientific impact than researchers who received individual research grants.

Last modified on: October 13, 2017