Effects of large-scale research funding programs: A Japanese case study

Scientometrics

Volumn 94, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 1253-1273

  Ida, Takanori ^a   Fukuzawa, Naomi ^a  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Difference in differences; Government grants; Peer review; Research assessment; University research

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873749927     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0841-3     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Anderson, R., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1978). Publication ratings versus peer ratings of universities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29(2), 91-103.
2. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers' interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(5), 694-707.
3. Cameron, A., & Trivedi, P. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications (pp. 860-898). New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Committee for Research Evaluations. (2008). Present status of research evaluations and its future in Japan. Science Council of Japan. http://www. scj. go. jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-20-t51-3e. pdf.
5. Dawid, A. (1979). Conditional independence in statistical theory. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 41(1), 1-31.
6. Dietz, J., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349-367.
7. Gaughan, M. (2009). Using the curriculum vitae for policy research: an evaluation of national institutes of health center and training support on career trajectories. Research Evaluation, 18(2), 117-124.
8. 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.
9. Gaughan, M., & Ponomariov, B. (2008). Faculty publication productivity, collaboration, and grants velocity: using curricula vitae to compare center-affiliated and unaffiliated scientists. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 103-110.
10. Gibbons, M., & Georghiou, L. (1987). Evaluation of research: A selection of current practices. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
11. Haddow, G., & Genoni, P. (2010). Citation analysis and peer ranking of Australian social science journals. Scientometrics, 85(2), 471-487.
12. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2000). Market value and patent citations: A first look. NBER Working PaperNo 7741. http://www. nber. org/papers/w7741. pdf?new_window=1.
13. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working PaperNo 8498. http://www. nber. org/papers/w8498. pdf?new_window=1.
14. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511-515.
15. Heckman, J., & Robb, R. (1985). Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions. In: J. Heckman & B. Singer (eds.), Longitudinal analysis of labor market data (pp. 156-245). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Jaffe, A., & Lerner, J. (2001). Reinviting public R& D: patent policy and the commercialization of national laboratory technologies. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 167-198.
17. Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1996). Flows of knowledge from universities and federal laboratories: modeling the flow of patent citations over time and across institutional and geographic boundaries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(23), 12671-12677.
18. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. (2000). The Meaning of patent citations: Report of the NBER/case-western reserve survey of patentees. NBER Working Paper No 7631. http://www. nber. org/papers/w7631. pdf?new_window=1.
19. Kostoff, R. (1994). Federal research impact assessment: state-of-the-art. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6), 428-440.
20. Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (1999). The Quality of ideas: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. NBER Working PaperNo7345. http://www. nber. org/papers/w7345. pdf?new_window=1.
21. Lee, M.-J. (2005). Micro-econometrics for policy, program, and treatment effects. New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Meho, L., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.
23. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the web of science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161-169.
24. Oppenheim, C. (1995). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British library and information science university departments. Journal of Documentation, 51(1), 18-27.
25. Oppenheim, C. (1997). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for british research in genetics. Anatomy and archaeology. Journal of Documentation, 53(5), 477-487.
26. Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). A comment to the paper by Waltman et al. Scientometrics 87 467-481, 2011. Scientometrics, 88(3), 1011-1016.
27. Rinia, E., van Leeuwen, Th, van Vuren, H., & van Raan, A. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27(1), 95-107.
28. Rinia, E., van Leeuwen, Th, van Vuren, H., & van Raan, A. (2001). Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research Policy, 30(3), 357-361.
29. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55.
30. Stock, J., & Watson, M. (2007). Introduction to econometrics: International edition (2nd edn., pp. 468-519). Boston: Pearson/Addison-Wesley.
31. van Raan, A. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491-502.
32. Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (pp. 603-643). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
33. Zhu, J., Meadows, A., & Mason, G. (1991). Citations and departmental research ratings. Scientometrics, 21(2), 171-179.