Distribution of academic research funds: a case of Japanese national research grant

Scientometrics

Volumn 88, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 43-60

  Shibayama, Sotaro ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

Academia; Funding; Inequality; Research grant; University

Indexed keywords

EID: 84943015084     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0392-z     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Asonuma, A. (2002). Finance reform in Japanese higher education. Higher Education, 43, 109-126.
2. Baumeister, A. A., & Bacharach, V. R. (1997). "Big" versus "little" science: Comparative analysis of program projects and individual research grants. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102, 211-227.
3. Burrell, Q. L. (1991). The bradford distribution and the Gini index. Scientometrics, 21, 181-194.
4. Center for National University Finance and Management. (2009). Research on tuition and expenses for basic education and research at national universities. Japan: Chiba.
5. Center for National University Finance and Management. (2010). Research report of the finance and administration of national universities. Chiba, Japan.
6. Crespi, G. A., & Geuna, A. (2008). An empirical study of scientific production: A cross country analysis, 1981-2002. Research Policy, 37, 565-579.
7. Denavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smit, J. C. (2009). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2008. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
8. Dorfman, R. (1979). Formula for the Gini coefficient. Review of Economics and Statistics, 61, 146-149.
9. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and "Mode 2" to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109-123.
10. Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41, 277-304.
11. Halffman, W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Is inequality among universities increasing? Gini coefficients and the elusive rise of elite universities. Minerva, 48, 55-72.
12. Hand, E. (2008). 222 NIH grants: 22 researchers. Nature, 452, 258.
13. Hicks, D. M., & Katz, S. (2009). Toward a science policy framework addressing extreme inequity and resource distribution in research. http://works. bepress. com/sylvan_katz/1.
14. Kneller, R. (2010). The changing governance of Japanese public science. In R. Whitley, J. Gläser, & L. Engwall (Eds.), Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relations in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Kotchen, T. A., Lindquist, T., Malik, K., & Ehrenfeld, E. (2004). NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 836-843.
16. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16, 317-323.
17. MEXT Subcommittee of Academic Science. (2003). What big science should be. Tokyo, Japan: The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology.
18. MEXT Subcommittee of Academic Science. (2008). The direction of urgent measures on Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research: The summary of discussion Part 2. Tokyo, Japan: The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology.
19. National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. (2009). Collecting the data study for evaluating the achievement of the S& T Basic Plans. NISTEP Report, 133. Tokyo, Japan: NISTEP.
20. OECD. (1997). The evaluation of scientific research: Selected experiences. Paris, France: OECD.
21. Ray, D. (1998). Development economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22. Wadman, M. (1997). NIH to abandon young investigator grants. Nature, 390, 211.
23. Zitt, M., Barre, R., Sigogneau, A., & Laville, F. (1999). Territorial concentration and evolution of science and technology activities in the European Union: A descriptive analysis. Research Policy, 28, 545-562.