A bibliometric analysis of NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration and Research

Scientometrics

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 629-644

  Belter, Chris W ^a  

^a NOAA EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bibliometric mapping; Citation analysis; Research evaluation; Research funding; Science policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874645777     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0836-0     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aguillo, I. F. (2011). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343-351. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-011-0582-8.
2. Albert, R., & Barabasi, A. L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47-97. doi: 10. 1103/RevModPhys. 74. 47.
3. Armstrong, P. W., Caverson, M. M., Adams, L., Taylor, M., & Olley, P. M. (1997). Evaluation of the heart and stroke foundation of Canada research Scholarship Program: research productivity and impact. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 13(5), 507-516.
4. Benavent, R. A., Arroyo, A. A., Sanchez, M. A., Pizarro, M. B., Heras, M., Alcalde, G. G., et al. (2011). Evolution and scientific impact of research grants from the Spanish Society of Cardiology and Spanish Heart Foundation (2000-2006). Revista Espanola de Cardiologia, 64(10), 904-915. doi: 10. 1016/j. recesp. 2011. 03. 024.
5. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics-Theory and Experiment, P10008. doi: 10. 1088/1742-5468/2008/10/p10008.
6. Borner, K., Chen, C. M., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 179-255.
7. Bornmann, L., de Moya Anegón, F., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The new Excellence Indicator in the World Report of the SCImago Institutions Rankings 2011. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 333-335. doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2011. 11. 006.
8. Bourke, P., & Butler, L. (1999). The efficacy of different modes of funding research: perspectives from Australian data on the biological sciences. Research Policy, 28(5), 489-499. doi: 10. 1016/s0048-7333(99)00009-8.
9. Boyack, K. W., & Borner, K. (2003). Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: visualizing the influence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 447-461. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 10230.
10. Boyack, K. W., & Jordan, P. (2011). Metrics associated with NIH funding: a high-level view. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. doi: 10. 1136/amiajnl-2011-000213.
11. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389-2404. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 21419.
12. Campbell, D., Picard-Aitken, M., Côté, 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.
13. Centre for Science and Technology Studies. (2011). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: data collection and indicators. The Netherlands: Leiden University.
14. Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (1999). Citation, funding acknowledgement and author nationality relationships in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation, 55(4), 402-408. doi: 10. 1108/EUM0000000007153.
15. Druss, B. G., & Marcus, S. C. (2005). Tracking publication outcomes of National Institutes of Health grants. American Journal of Medicine, 118(6), 658-663. doi: 10. 1016/j. amjmed. 2005. 02. 015.
16. Franceschet, M. (2012). The large-scale structure of journal citation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(4), 837-842. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 22608.
17. Gunn, A. J., Twigden, D. G., & Scoggins, B. A. (1999). Bibliometric analysis of HRC-supported biomedical publications, 1990 to 1994. New Zealand Medical Journal, 112(1096), 351-354.
18. Hall, K. L., Stokols, D., Stipelman, B. A., Vogel, A. L., Feng, A., Masimore, B., et al. (2012). Assessing the value of team science: a study comparing center- and investigator-initiated grants. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(2), 157-163. doi: 10. 1016/j. amepre. 2011. 10. 011.
19. Huang, Z., Chen, H. C., Li, X., & Roco, M. C. (2006). Connecting NSF funding to patent innovation in nanotechnology (2001-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(6), 859-879. doi: 10. 1007/s11051-006-9147-9.
20. Huang, Z., Chen, H. C., Yan, L. J., & Roco, M. C. (2005). Longitudinal nanotechnology development (1991-2002): National Science Foundation funding and its impact on patents. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(4-5), 343-376. doi: 10. 1007/s11051-005-5468-3.
21. Jacso, P. (2010). Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 34(1), 175-191. doi: 10. 1108/14684521011024191.
22. Jain, A., Garg, K. C., Sharma, P., & Kumar, S. (1998). Impact of SERC's funding on research in chemical sciences. Scientometrics, 41(3), 357-370. doi: 10. 1007/bf02459051.
23. Jokic, M. (2000). Scientometric evaluation of the projects in biology funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Republic of Croatia, in the 1991-1996 period. Periodicum Biologorum, 102(1), 129-142.
24. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10-25. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 5090140103.
25. Klenk, N. L., Dabros, A., & Hickey, G. M. (2010). Quantifying the research impact of the Sustainable Forest Management Network in the social sciences: a bibliometric study. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere, 40(11), 2248-2255. doi: 10. 1139/x10-138.
26. Lewison, G. (1998). Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact. Gut, 43(2), 288-293.
27. Lewison, G., & Devey, M. E. (1999). Bibliometric methods for the evaluation of arthritis research. Rheumatology, 38(1), 13-20. doi: 10. 1093/rheumatology/38. 1. 13.
28. Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Opthof, T. (2011). Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: principles for comparing sets of documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1370-1381. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 21534.
29. Lichtman, M. A., & Oakes, D. (2001). The productivity and impact of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Scholar Program: the apparent positive effect of peer review. Blood Cells, Molecules, & Diseases, 27(6), 1020-1027. doi: 10. 1006/bcmd. 2001. 0476.
30. Lyubarova, R., Itagaki, B. K., & Itagaki, M. W. (2009). The Impact of National Institutes of Health Funding on US Cardiovascular Disease Research. PLoS ONE, 4(7). doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0006425.
31. Mane, K. K., & Borner, K. (2004). Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(S1), 5287-5290. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 0307626100.
32. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U. S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317-330. doi: 10. 1016/s0048-7333(97)00013-9.
33. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404-409. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 021544898.
34. Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2), 167-256. doi: 10. 1137/s003614450342480.
35. Noyons, E. (2001). Bibliometric mapping of science in a science policy context. Scientometrics, 50(1), 83-98. doi: 10. 1023/a: 1005694202977.
36. Porter, A. L., Garner, J., & Crowl, T. (2012). Research coordination networks: evidence of the relationship between funded interdisciplinary networking and scholarly impact. BioScience, 62(3), 282-288. doi: 10. 1525/bio. 2012. 62. 3. 9.
37. Rafols, I., Porter, A. L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Science overlay maps: a new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1871-1887. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 21368.
38. Rangnekar, D. (2005). Acknowledged: analysing the bibliometric presence of the multiple sclerosis society. Aslib Proceedings, 57(3), 247-260. doi: 10. 1108/00012530510599208.
39. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509-532. doi: 10. 1016/s0048-7333(00)00091-3.
40. Sci2 Team (2009). Science of Science (Sci2) Tool. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies.
41. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 4630240406.
42. Zhao, D. Z. (2010). Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field. Scientometrics, 84(2), 293-306. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-010-0191-y.
43. Zoss, A. M., & Borner, K. (2012). Mapping interactions within the evolving science of science and innovation policy community. Scientometrics, 91(2), 631-644. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-011-0574-8.