Funding acknowledgement analysis: An enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: The case of nanotechnology

Scientometrics

Volumn 87, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 563-586

  Wang, Jue ^a   Shapira, Philip ^b,c  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Funding acknowledgement analysis; Nanotechnology; Publications; Research funding; Research outputs; Research sponsorship

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955464744     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0362-5     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Adams, J. D., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales d'Economie et de Statisque, 49/50, 127-162.
2. Baird, D., & Shew, A. (2004). Probing the history of scanning tunneling microscopy. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
3. Baker, S., & Aston, A. (2005). The business of nanotech. Business Week. Feb 14, 64-71.
4. Boyack, K. W., & Borner, K. (2003). Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: visualizing the influence of grants on the number of citation counts of research papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 447-461.
5. Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy, 27(8), 807-821.
6. Broadhead, R. S., & Rist, R. C. (1976). Gatekeepers and the social control of social research. Social Problems, 23(3), 325-336.
7. Butler, L. (2001). Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data. Research Evaluation, 10(1), 59-65.
8. Campbell, D., Picard-Aitken, M., Cote, G., Caruso, J., Valentim, R., Edmonds, S., et al. (2010). Bibliometrics as a performance measurement tool for research evaluation: The case of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 66-83.
9. Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (1999). Citation, funding acknowledgement and author nationality relationships in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation, 55(4), 402-408.
10. Drexler, E. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books.
11. European Commission. (2004). Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Brussels: DG Research.
12. European Commission (2009). Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009, Second Implementation Report 2007-2009. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://ec. europa. eu/nanotechnology/index_en. html.
13. Gaughan, M., & Bozeman, B. (2002). Using curriculum vitae to compare some impacts of NSF research grants with research center funding. Research Evaluation, 11(1), 17-26.
14. Griliches, Z. (1985). Productivity, R& D, and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. NBER Working Paper No. W1547. Boston, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
15. Harter, S. P., & Hooten, P. A. (1992). Information science and scientists: JASIS, 1972-1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 583-593.
16. Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Senker, J., & Kuhlmann, S. (2007). Identifying creative research accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics. Scientometrics, 70(1), 125-152.
17. Hicks, D., Albert, M., Breitzman, T., & Cheney, P. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of core papers fundamental to tissue engineering. Haddon Heights: CHI Research, Inc.
18. Huang, Z., Chen, H., Li, X., & Roco, M. C. (2006). Connecting NSF funding to patent innovation in nanotechnology (2001-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 859-879.
19. Joint Economic Committee. (2007). Nanotechnology: The future is coming sooner than you think. Washington: US Congress.
20. Kearnes, M., & Wienroth, M. (2009). 'Arm's length'? Narratives of impact and autonomy in UK Research Councils. Working Paper. ESRC Project on Strategic Science: Research Intermediaries and the Governance of Innovation. UK: Department of Geography, Durham University.
21. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometrics and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13, 261-276.
22. Lewison, G., & Carding, P. (2003). Evaluating UK research in speech and language therapy. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 38, 48-65.
23. Lichtenberg, F. R. (1985). Assessing the impact of federal industrial r& d expenditures on private r& d activity. Papers commissioned for a workshop on the federal role in research and development. The National Academies Press, pp. 115-150.
24. Lux Research. (2004). The nanotech report: investment overview and market research for nanotechnology. New York: Lux Research.
25. Lux Research. (2006). The nanotech report (4th ed.): Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology. New York: Lux Research.
26. Lux Research. (2007). Top nations in nanotech see their lead erode. New York: Lux Research.
27. Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing. American Economic Review, 70(5), 863-873.
28. Mansfield, E. (1981). How economists see R& D. Harvard Business Review, 59(6), 98-106.
29. Martin, B., Salter, A., Hicks, D., Pavitt, K., Senker, J. Sharp, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (1996). The relationship between publicly funded basic research and economic performance: A SPRU review. Report prepared for HM treasury. University of Sussex, Brighton.
30. McAllister, P. R., Narin, F., & Corrigan, J. G. (1983). Programmatic evaluation and comparison based on standardized citation scores. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-30, 4.
31. OMB. (1993). Government Performance Results Act of 1993. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of Management and Budget.
32. OTA. (1986). Research funding as an investment: Can we measure the returns? A technical memorandum. OTA-TMSET-36. Washington: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.
33. OTA. (1991). Federally funded research: Decisions for a decade. OTA-SET-490. Washington: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.
34. Paasi, M. (1998). Efficiency of innovation systems in the transition countries. Economic Systems, 22(3), 217-234.
35. Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy, 20, 109-119.
36. Payne, A. A., & Siow, A. (2003). Does federal research funding increase university research output? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1), Article 1.
37. PCAST. (2005). The national nanotechnology initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the national nanotechnology advisory panel. Washington: The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
38. Peterson, C. (1991). Nanotechnology race: MITI adopts 'Bottom-Up' strategy. Foresight Update 12, August 1. http://www. foresight. org/Updates/Update12/index. html.
39. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023-1041.
40. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715-728.
41. Rigby, J. (2011). Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for publications: An examination of new dimensions and new controversies for bibliometrics. Manchester Business School, Working Paper, No. 611. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.
42. Roco, M. C. (2007). National nanotechnology initiative-past, present, future. In W. A. Goddard, D. Brenner, S. E. Lyshevski, & G. J. Iafrate (Eds.), Handbook on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis.
43. Sandstrom, U. (2009). Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics, 79(2), 341-349.
44. Sarewitz, D. (1997). Social change and science policy. Issues in Science and Technology, XIII(4), 29-32.
45. Sargent, J. F. (2008). Nanotechnology and U. S: Competitiveness. Issues and Options. RL34493. Washington: Congressional Research Service.
46. Science and Technology Committee. (2004). Science and technology-fifth report. London: House of Commons.
47. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2007). R& D policy in the United States: The promotion of nanotechnology R& D. Monitoring and analysis of policies and public financing instruments conducive to higher levels of R& D investments-The "Policy Mix" Project. European Commission, DG Research (DG-RTD-2005-M-01-02). ftp://ftp. cordis. europa. eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/pmcasestudy_us_nanotech11. pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.
48. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2010). Follow the money: What was the impact of the nanotechnology funding boom of the past ten years? Nature, 468, 627-628.
49. Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312-320.
50. Takemura, M. (2005). Strategic promotion of nanotechnology R& D in Japan. Tsukuba-City: National Institute for Materials Science.
51. Terleckyj, N. E. (1974). Effects of R& D on the productivity growth of industries: An exploratory study. Washington: National Planning Association.
52. Terleckyj, N. E. (1985). Measuring economic effects of federal R& D expenditures: Recent history with special emphasis on federal R& D performed in industry. Papers commissioned for a workshop on the federal role in research and development. Washington: The National Academies Press, pp. 151-172.
53. Thomson Reuters. (2010). Funding acknowledgements. http://wokinfo. com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/fundingsearch. Accessed 2 May 2010.
54. Trochim, W. M., Marcus, S. E., Masse, L. C., Mose, R. P., & Weld, P. C. (2008). The evaluation of large research initiatives: a participatory integrative mixed-methods approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 8-28.
55. Uldrich, J., & Newberry, D. (2003). The next big thing is really small: How nanotechnology will change the future of your business. New York: Crown Business.
56. Woolgar, L. (2010). ERAWATCH research inventory report for JAPAN. European Commission: ERAWATCH. http://cordis. europa. eu/erawatch/index. cfm?fuseaction=ri. content& topicID=4& countryCode=JP. Accessed 15 Mar 2010.
57. Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Porter, A. (2008). Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 981-986.