Editors' Column
Research Funding in ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY If the funding profiles of papers published in ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY are a reflection of the availability of research funds, 1979 was a relatively affluent year, that is in comparison to the support acknowledged 10 years ago. Of the approximately 600 papers published last year, fully 68%, compared to 57% in 1969, acknowledge some form of research support. To gain some insight into the changing pattern of sources of analytical research support and their impact on the publication of research we have examined sources for papers published in this JOURNAL in the years 1979 and 1969 as determined by the supporting organizations cited at the end of each paper. Some figures from this study are shown here. It must be noted that the entries in Figure 1 and Table I reflect only the number of times or the percentage of a given class of organization's support, and these figures may not bear a direct relationship to the actual dollar amounts involved. However, it is still possible to make a few general observations. In Figure 1, which shows the percentage breakdown of the papers by four classifications, what is most noticeable is the significant change in the percentage of the category "not funded." The category of papers
dropped from 43% in 1969 to 32% in 1979. In terms of actual number, however, papers in this category stayed constant at approximately 225. Thus the drop in percentage is a reflection of an increase in the total number of papers published—that is from 535 in 1969 to 594 in 1979. Another way to look at it is that while the "not funded" share remained constant, the funded share went up in 1979 by 60 papers or more than 10%. The other noteworthy feature of Figure 1 is that there are only slight shifts in the U.S. government and nonprofit sources. Those who sought government research grants during the last decade might disagree, but it seems that in 1979 government funding activity, at least in analytical chemistry, was as good as, if not slightly better than, in 1969. The U.S. nonprofit sources also show a slight gain of 3%. In 1979 the papers acknowledging foreign sources represented 9% of the total published papers, compared to only 4% in 1969. However, this increase is probably more a reflection of increased foreign participation overall. In 1969, papers of foreign authors represented only 13% of the total published papers, compared to 30% in 1979. As shown in Table I, the only U.S. government entities with significant analytical research support are NSF,
Percentage of Papers by Funding Classification
Figure 1 732 A • ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 52. NO. 7, JUNE 1980
Table I. Institutions and Number of Papers Acknowledging Each Institution Funding Institutions
1979
1969
U.S. government NSF NBS (Commerce) NIH, NIOSH, etc. (HEW) Agriculture Energy Interior Defense Other U.S. nonprofit Foreign government Foreign nonprofit
96 4 45 5 55 6 1 66 145 50 17
44.5* 0.5* 40 57.5** 13.5* 38 91 10.5* 9
• Formerly under Atomic Energy Commission. * Fractions represent the papers acknowledging two sources.
NIH, and the Department of Energy (DOE). Of these, the numbers for NIH at 40 and 45, and DOE at 55 and 57 do not indicate much change. NSF seems to be the only government source with a dramatic increase. The number funded by NSF in 1979 went up to 96 from 45 in 1969. Table I also shows support by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior of five and six papers respectively. The numbers are small compared to the other three government sources. What is significant here though is that the support of these two departments was nil in 1969. "Other" government sources together supported a considerable number (38) in 1969 and the number supported in 1979 (66) is even greater. From the above it seems that recent years have seen modest improvement in the funding picture for analytical research. However, as the current push to balance the federal budget continues, the availability of federal dollars for research will become less certain. In the coming years we will closely monitor the effects of changing funding patterns on research publication. Barbara Cassatt
