Should the funding source be an important factor when judging the quality of a scientific study?

Small funders can support good science. May pump prime research for larger trials. Not as competitive as larger funders allowing early career academics to get a foothold

When coming from companies and there's a non-conflict of interest declaration

The quality of a paper, including its methodology, should be judged independently of the funding source. The funding source should subsequently be taken into account to define whether any bias has occurred in interpretation, choice of models etc.

Getting funding in some part of the world based on who you know and not what you know.

Science SHOULD be based on the principle of ethical research, adequate study design, and controls, regardless of funding

Some funding sources may originate from entities that don't have policies preventing conflicts of interes in different levels or areas. E.g. tobacco industry funded research in 1970's.

All reviews would be less subject to bias, either favorable or negative bias, if authors names were stripped and we could concentrate on the actual content of a manuscript. However, that will never happen. But, when reviewing, "just the facts, mam" (a meme from the old Dragnet TV show for those who were kids in the 1950s) should be the rule. Judging quality on the basis of funding when reviewing journal manuscripts is akin to ad hominem argumentation, a logical fallacy.

1. amount (in money)
2. % of the total funding
3. redondant funding from same source

The funding source of a scientific study can be an important factor when assessing its quality. It is crucial to evaluate the objectivity and potential conflicts of interest that may arise from the funding source. Funding from commercial sources, for instance, may result in a bias towards the sponsor's interests. This bias can affect the study's design, methods, results, and interpretation. However, this does not necessarily mean that industry-funded research is of lower quality than publicly-funded research. Rather, it is essential to assess the study's methodology, transparency, and adherence to ethical standards. The source of funding should not be the sole determinant of the study's quality, but it should be considered alongside other factors when evaluating the research.

It is important, because it depends on the interest of the funding source. Some funding sources would like to see whether the investigator had previously funded to fulfil the task on hand.

Bias on the part of researchers funded by captured government funders are just as much of a concern as bias of industry-funded research.

Ideally, Industry should be responsible for funding studies to demonstrate the safety of their products via neutral third parties. If funding a study reduces its quality, it becomes impossible to fulfill this expectation. However, unconscious or unintentionally human bias can occur with neutral third parties as a result of funding from any group; ideally, there should be a way to commission and pay for these studies such that the neutral third party performing the testing is not aware of the source of the funding until after the study is completed and made available to key stakeholders (regulatory officials, public). This would ensure scientific neutrality, and ensure that the information becomes available to the people who should have access to it, regardless of whether it is favorable to the funding source's mission/goal/narrative.

Quality should be considered based on the data presented. Transparency in reporting of analysis, observations and statistical testing should be fully available to the reviewer/reader. Funding is a post hoc disclosure, unrelated to quality.

Funding sources are often a good indicator of the competitiveness of a proposal, and this often translate into quality. The correlation is not perfect, but it should work as a rough proxy.

Although funding is important to make experiments, sometimes (especially at the beginning) it is hard to obtain. Regardless, if the idea/hypothesis is clean and clear and the way to go through is well established and makes sense, funding shouldn't be a factor to see/judge quality

Funding sources from organizations or individuals with a vested interest in a study's results can potentially create biases in scientific studies. However, transparency and ethical guidelines are important to manage these biases. It is also important to note that funding sources do not necessarily invalidate the findings of a study. The scientific community has developed policies to ensure transparency and minimize conflicts of interest. Rigorous peer review and replication studies can help validate the findings of a study, regardless of the funding source. It is possible to maintain the integrity of scientific studies despite the influence of funding sources.

Too often the results are skewed towards the funder's interests.

Funding and the motivation to consider a project is of great importance and relevance. Introduces potential bias and conflict of interest, esp when the funder is motivated to "push" their product. This is not only relevant to reports that end up being published, but also negative studies that get "squashed" by the funder as it didn't fit their agenda

Bias very possible

It is important to evaluate the presence of conflicts of interest and if they could have had an impact on the study

Though the possibility of bias is high, when the funder has commercial interests; but from my personal experiences I can tell that there are industries interested in genuine research on their products, and they provide fund expecting unbiased results.

Many private funding sources have special interest on specific findings within a scientific study, as economic damage or boost may be the outcome

If the article sounds like an advertisement for a commercial product sold or supplied by the funder - it IS just an Ad and not a scientific paper. Ditto with anything that sounds like a political party . Reviewers should pick this up.

Should be disclosed but research should be judged on its merits

It depends on the study, how compelling the results are, and its overall impact and its eventual benefit.

If industry funded, we can not rule out conflict of interest.

The quality of a scientific study and its potential impact are completely independent of the source of funding.

The funding should be disclosed and considered for potential conflict of intersts

Some important findings are accidental, and may not coincide with the agency reputation.

depends on the agency

The funding source shall be neutral

It should be disclosed

Funding is peer reviewed!

some finding source would influence results and take part of the final decision

Some basic areas have limited scope of funding

There some excellent research that is not funded

It depends on the economic ties the funding source has with the research.

Poor quality research can be funded by anyone. Funding sources have no bearing on research quality.

Getting funds from a reputable agency gives credibility to the research proposal in the first place. However, the quality of the results (published/under review) is the final criterion for judging of course.

Si, este sesgo puede respaldar intereses declarados o no declarados.

Without funding you cannot do a quality scientific study

Some agencies have a better panel of experts reviewing the proposal which usually leads to a higher quality research.