Looking for the impact of peer review: Does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?

Scientometrics

Volumn 94, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 57-73

  Rigby, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Funding acknowledgements; Indicators; Log transformation; Peer review; Regression

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871924346     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0779-5     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Albrecht, C. (2009). A bibliometric analysis of research publications funded partially by the Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA) during a 10-year period (1994-2003). South African Family Practice, 73(1), 73-76.
2. Baldi, S. (1998). Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations: A network-analytic model. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 829-846.
3. Berg, J. M. (2008). A nobel lesson: The grant behind the prize. Science, 319(5865), 900. (letter).
4. Bourke, P., & Butler, L. (1999). Analysis of impact depending on mode of funding-Austria biomed papers. Research Policy, 28(5), 489-499.
5. Boyack, K. W. (2004). Mapping knowledge domains: Characterizing PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5192-5199. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 0307509100.
6. Butler, L. (2001). Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data. Research Evaluation, 10(1), 59-65. (proceedings paper).
7. 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. doi: 10. 1177/1098214009354774.
8. Capecchi, M. (2008). Response. Science, 319(5865), 900-901. (letter).
9. Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., et al. (2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76(1), 169-185. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-007-1892-8.
10. Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38(4), 610-623. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2009. 01. 014. (article; proceedings paper).
11. Hornbostel, S. (2001). Third party funding of German universities. An indicator of research activity? Scientometrics, 50(3), 523-537.
12. Lewison, G. (1994). Publications from the european-community biotechnology action program (bap)-multinationality, acknowledgment of support, and citations. Scientometrics, 31(2), 125-142.
13. Lewison, G. (2009). Financial acknowledgements on the Web of Science: A new resource for bibliometric analysis. Proceedings of ISSI 2009-12th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2(2), 968-969.
14. Lewison, G., & Dawson, G. (1998). The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research. Scientometrics, 41(1-2), 17-27.
15. Lewison, G., & Devey, M. E. (1999). Bibliometric methods for the evaluation of arthritis research. Rheumatology, 38(1), 13-20.
16. Lewison, G., Grant, J., & Jansen, P. (2001). International gastroenterology research: Subject areas, impact, and funding. Gut, 49(2), 295-302.
17. Lewison, G., & Markusova, V. (2010). The evaluation of Russian cancer research. Research Evaluation, 19(2), 129-144.
18. Lewison, G., & van Rooyen, S. (1999). Reviewers' and editors' perceptions of submitted manuscripts with different numbers of authors, addresses and funding sources. Journal of Information Science, 25(6), 509-511.
19. Leydesdorff, L., & Bensman, S. (2006). Classification and power laws: The logarithmic transformation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1470-1486.
20. Narin, F., Pinski, G., & Gee, H. H. (1976). Structure of the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(1), 25-45. (article).
21. Pao, M. L. (1991). On the relationship of funding and research publications. Scientometrics, 20(1), 257-281.
22. Rangnekar, D. (2005). Acknowledged: Analysing the bibliometric presence of the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Aslib Proceedings, 57(3), 247-260.
23. Rigby, J. (2011). Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for publications: New dimensions and new controversies for research policy and evaluation. Research Evaluation, 20(5), 11. doi: 10. 3152/095820211X13164389670392.
24. Sandstrom, U. (2009). Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics, 79(2), 341-349. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-0422-2.
25. Tatsioni, A., Vavva, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2010). Sources of funding for nobel prize-winning work: Public or private? Faseb Journal, 24(5), 1335-1339. doi: 10. 1096/fj. 09-148239.
26. van der Velde, A., van Leeuwen, T., van Welie, S., & Stam, H. A. K. (2010). High quality of research supported by the Netherlands Heart Foundation ('Nederlandse Hartstichting'). nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde, 154, A803.
27. van Leeuwen, T. N., van der Wurff, L. J., & van Raan A. F. J. (2001). The use of combined bibliometric methods in research funding policy. Research Evaluation, 10(3), 195-201.