Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data

Using research funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the classification of the grant that funded the research which led to the publication was contrasted with the use of a common proxy, journal set classification. Frequently, the two measures produce very similar results but major differences can occur. Acknowledgments data appear to accurately reflect a funding body's total research output, but lack the ability to identify individual funding schemes within such bodies. In contrast to the output funded by longterm grants, publications from research funded on a limited, three-year cycle exhibit a very fast publication turn-around - considerably faster than the often-quoted four years. The accuracy with which researchers report links between publications and the grants from which they emanate is examined.