Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: A case study of the library and information science field

Scientometrics

Volumn 84, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 293-306

  Zhao, Dangzhi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Library and information science; Research evaluation; Research funding; Research policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953727178     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0191-y     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Avkiran, N. K. (1997). Scientific collaboration in finance does not lead to better quality research. Scientometrics, 39(2), 173-184.
2. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & van den Besselaar, P. (2010). A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications. Journal of Informetrics. doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2009. 10. 004.
3. Bourke, P., & Butler, L. (1999). The efficacy of different modes of funding research: Perspectives from Australian data on the biological sciences. Research Policy, 28, 489-499.
4. Garfield, E. (1986). Which medical journals have the greatest impact? Annuals of Internal Medicine, 105, 313-320.
5. Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199-214.
6. Heinze, T. (2008). How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes. Science and Public Policy, 35(5), 302-318.
7. Herbertz, H. (1995). Does it pay to cooperate? A bibliometric case study in molecular biology. Scientometrics, 33(1), 117-122.
8. Joerges, B., & Shinn, T. (2002). Instrumentation between science, state and industry. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9. Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: how scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33(7), 489-504.
10. Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2009). Macro-level indicators of the relation between research funding and research output. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 353-362.
11. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21, 311-323.
12. Nisonger, T. E., & Davis, C. H. (2005). The perception of library and information science journals by LIS education deans and ARL library directors: A replication of the Kohl-Davis study. College and Research Libraries, July 2005, 341-377.
13. Persson, O., Glanzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60, 421-432.
14. Prpić, K. (2007). Changes of scientific knowledge production and research productivity in a transitional society. Scientometrics, 72(3), 487-511.
15. Rousseau, R. (1992). Why am I not cited or why are multiauthored papers more cited than others. Journal of Documentation, 48(1), 19-80.
16. Scharnhorst, A. (1998). Citation-networks, science landscapes and evolutionary strategies. Scientometrics, 43(1), 95-106.
17. Smart, J. C., & Bayer, A. E. (1986). Author collaboration and impact: A note on citation rates of single and multiple authored articles. Scientometrics, 10(5-6), 297-305.
18. van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423-428.
19. Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008). Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996-2005: Introducing author bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2070-2086.