Analyzing the Phenomenon of 'Multiple Funding Attribution' in Scientific Papers

Abstract

This study conducts an analysis of the prevalent phenomenon of "marking one paper with more than one fund" in scientific publications. The practice of attributing a single research paper to multiple funding sources has become increasingly common in academic publishing, raising questions about transparency, accountability, and research integrity. Drawing upon data from scholarly databases, funding records, and author disclosures, this research examines the prevalence, patterns, and implications of multiple funding attribution in scientific papers across different disciplines and research contexts. Through quantitative analysis and qualitative case studies, the study explores the motivations behind the practice, including funding diversification strategies, collaborative research arrangements, and compliance with funding agency requirements. Additionally, the research investigates the challenges and controversies associated with multiple funding attribution, such as potential conflicts of interest, double counting of research outputs, and discrepancies in reporting practices. The findings offer insights into the complexities of funding attribution in academic research and provide implications for policymakers, funding agencies, journal editors, and researchers seeking to enhance transparency and accountability in research funding and publishing practices. By shedding light on the phenomenon of multiple funding attribution, this study contributes to advancing our understanding of the dynamics of research funding and dissemination in the scholarly community.