Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2015, Pages

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

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CITATION ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FUNDING; HYPOTHESIS; INVESTMENT; LITERATURE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH; RESEARCH SPONSORSHIP; STATISTICAL MODEL; ECONOMICS; FACTUAL DATABASE; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLISHING; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH;

EID: 84923169974     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117727     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. OECD (2011) Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) Vol. 2011/1. OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/msti-v2011-1-en-fr PMID: 23243387
2. GPRA (1993) Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Law (103-62).
3. NSF (2011) Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP). National Science Foundation. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm-summ.jsp?pims-id=501084&org=sbe. Accessed 2011 September 13. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.587961 PMID: 25473706
4. RISTEX (2011) R&D Program: Science of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy. Research Institute of Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan. Available: http://www.ristex.jp/EN/examin/stipolicy/index.html. Accessed 2011 September 13.
5. Solow RM (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics 39(3): 312-320.
6. Terleckyj NE (1974) Effects of R&D on the Productivity Growth of Industries: An exploratory study. Washington, DC: National Planning Association. PMID: 25057719
7. 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.
8. Mansfield E (1980) Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing. American Economic Review 70(5): 863-873.
9. Mansfield E (1981) How economists see R&D. Harvard Business Review 59(6): 98-106.
10. Terleckyj NE (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. The National Academies Press. pp.151-172.
11. Lichtenberg FR (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.
12. Pavitt K (1991) What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy 20: 109-119.
13. 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.
14. Paasi M (1998) Efficiency of innovation systems in the transition countries. Economic Systems 22(3):217-234.
15. McAllister PR, Narin F, Corrigan JG (1983) Programmatic evaluation and comparison based on standardized citation scores. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-30 4.
16. Adams JD, Griliches Z (1998) Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales d'Economie et de Statisque 49/50.
17. Payne AA, Siow A (2003) Does federal research funding increase university research output? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 3(1) Article 1. doi: 10.2217/bmm.14.84 PMID: 25605453
18. Huang Z, Chen H, Li X, Roco MC (2006) Connecting NSF funding to patent innovation in nanotechnology (2001-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8: 859-879.
19. Cronin B, Shaw D (1999) Citation, funding acknowledgment and author nationality relationships in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation 55(4): 402-408.
20. Harter SP, Hooten PA (1992) Information science and scientists: JASIS, 1972-1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43(9): 583-593.
21. van Leeuwen TN, van der Wurff LJ, van Raan AFJ (2001) The use of combined bibliometric methods in research funding policy. Research Evaluation 10(3): 195-201.
22. Trochim WM, Marcus SE, Masse LC, Mose RP, Weld PC (2008) The evaluation of large research initiatives: a participatory integrative mixed-methods approach. American Journal of Evaluation 29: 8-28.
23. Sandstrom U (2009) Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics 79(2): 341-349.
24. Campbell D, Picard-Aitken M, Cote G, Caruso J, Valentim R, Edmonds S, Williams GT, Macaluso B, Robitaille JP, Bastien N, Laframboise MC, Lebeau LM, Mirabel P, Lariviere V, Archambault E (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.
25. 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. doi: 10.1038/468627a PMID: 21124430
26. Wang J, Shapira P (2011) Funding acknowledgment analysis-an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: The case of nanotechnology. Scientometrics 87(3): 563-586.
27. Costas R, van Leeuwen T (2012) Approaching the "reward triangle": General analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and "peer interactive communication" in scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(8): 1647-1661.
28. King J (1987) A review of bibliometrics and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science 13: 261-276.
29. EPSRC (2013) Peer Review Principles. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Available: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance/basics/Pages/prprinciples.aspx. Accessed 2013 March 30.
30. NIH (2011) Peer review process. National Institutes of Health, Office of Extra Mural Research, US Department of Health and Human Services. Available: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer-review-process.htm. Accessed 2011 December 7.
31. NSF (2013) Proposal and award policies and procedure guide. National Science Foundation. NSF 14-1. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf14001/nsf14-1.pdf. Accessed 2014 December 10. doi: 10.14802/jmd.14038 PMID: 25616262
32. Langfeldt L (2001) The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome. Social Studies of Science 31(6): 820-841.
33. Decker RS, Wimsatt L, Trice AG, Konstan JA (2011) A profile of federal-grant administrative burden among federal demonstration partnership faculty. A Report of the Faculty Standing Committee of the Federal Demonstration Partnership. Available: http://www.iscintelligence.com/archivos-subidos/usfacultyburden-5.pdf. Accessed 2014 December 10.
34. Harter SP, Hooten PA (1990) Factors affecting funding and citation rates in information science publications. Library and Information Science Research 10: 263-280.
35. National Science Foundation (2014). Joint DMS/NIGMS Initiative to Support Research at the Interface of the Biological and Mathematical Sciences. Program Solicitation 13-570. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13570/nsf13570.htm. Accessed 2014 December 10.
36. NSB (2008) International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A priority for U.S. Foreign Policy and Our Nation's Innovation Enterprise. National Science Board.
37. Aksens DW (2003) Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation 12(3): 159-170.
38. Narin F, Stevens K, Whitlow ES (1991) Scientific Co-operation in Europe and the Citation of Multinationally Authored Papers. Scientometrics 21(3): 313-323.
39. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts B (1989) Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 40(5): 342-349.
40. Garfield E (1972) Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178 (4060): 471-479. PMID: 5079701
41. Thomson Reuters (2012) Journal Citation Reports-Journal Impact Factor. Available: http://adminapps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/help/h-impfact.htm. Accessed 2014 December 10.
42. Pendlebury DA, Adams A (2012) Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor. Scientometrics 92 (2): 395-401.
43. Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck DJ (2008) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10(5): 715-728.
44. Lewison G, Carding P. (2003) Evaluating UK research in speech and language therapy. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 38(1): 48-65.
45. Butler L (2001) Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data. Research Evaluation 10(1): 59-65.
46. Long JS, Freese J (2006) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata Press. PMID: 25590126
47. Wooldridge JM (2009) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. PMID: 25506961
48. Koenker R, Hallock KF (2001) Quantile regression. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(4): 143-156.