IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v91y2012i2d10.1007_s11192-011-0576-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science funding and research output: a study on 10 countries

Author

Listed:
  • Xianwen Wang

    (Dalian University of Technology)

  • Di Liu

    (Dalian University of Technology)

  • Kun Ding

    (Dalian University of Technology)

  • Xinran Wang

    (Dalian University of Technology)

Abstract

This study reports research on analyzing the impact of government funding on research output. 500,807 SCI papers published in 2009 in 10 countries are collected and analyzed. The results show that, in China, 70.34% of SCI papers are supported by some research funding, among which 89.57% are supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Average grants per funding-supported paper in China is 2.95, when in the USA the number is 2.93 and in Japan it is 2.40. The results of funding agency analysis show that, China, Germany and Spain are single funding agency dominated countries, while USA, Japan, Canada and Australia are double funding agencies dominated countries, and the source of funding in UK, France and Italy is diversified.

Suggested Citation

  • Xianwen Wang & Di Liu & Kun Ding & Xinran Wang, 2012. "Science funding and research output: a study on 10 countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 591-599, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:91:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0576-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0576-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0576-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-011-0576-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline, 2009. "Macro-level indicators of the relations between research funding and research output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 353-362.
    2. Kevin W. Boyack & Katy Börner, 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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(5), pages 447-461, March.
    3. Linda Butler, 2001. "Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 59-65, April.
    4. Ulf Sandström, 2009. "Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(2), pages 341-349, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jue Wang & Philip Shapira, 2011. "Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 563-586, June.
    2. Jiang Wu & Miao Jin & Xiu-Hao Ding, 2015. "Diversity of individual research disciplines in scientific funding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 669-686, May.
    3. Lili Miao & Vincent Larivi`ere & Feifei Wang & Yong-Yeol Ahn & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2023. "Cooperation and interdependence in global science funding," Papers 2308.08630, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    4. Ashkan Ebadi & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2016. "How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1093-1116, March.
    5. John Rigby, 2013. "Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 57-73, January.
    6. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, May.
    7. Chris W. Belter, 2013. "A bibliometric analysis of NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 629-644, May.
    8. Aparna Basu, 2014. "The Albuquerque model and efficiency indicators in national scientific productivity with respect to manpower and funding in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 531-539, August.
    9. Ritzen, Jo, 2020. "Public universities, in search of enhanced funding," MERIT Working Papers 2020-020, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    10. Shanwu Tian & Xiurui Xu & Ping Li, 2021. "Acknowledgement network and citation count: the moderating role of collaboration network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7837-7857, September.
    11. Chakraborty, Tanmoy & Tammana, Vihar & Ganguly, Niloy & Mukherjee, Animesh, 2015. "Understanding and modeling diverse scientific careers of researchers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 69-78.
    12. Nicola Grassano & Daniele Rotolo & Joshua Hutton & Frédérique Lang & Michael M. Hopkins, 2017. "Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 999-1017, April.
    13. Álvarez-Bornstein, Belén & Bordons, María, 2021. "Is funding related to higher research impact? Exploring its relationship and the mediating role of collaboration in several disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    14. Tanel Hirv, 2022. "The interplay of the size of the research system, ways of collaboration, level, and method of funding in determining bibliometric outputs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1295-1316, March.
    15. Koski, Timo & Sandström, Erik & Sandström, Ulf, 2016. "Towards field-adjusted production: Estimating research productivity from a zero-truncated distribution," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1143-1152.
    16. Dangzhi Zhao, 2010. "Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 293-306, August.
    17. Fredrik Niclas Piro, 2019. "The R&D composition of European countries: concentrated versus dispersed profiles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1095-1119, May.
    18. Sakiru Adebola Solarin & Yuen Yee Yen, 2016. "A global analysis of the impact of research output on economic growth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 855-874, August.
    19. Yan Yan & Shanwu Tian & Jingjing Zhang, 2020. "The impact of a paper’s new combinations and new components on its citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 895-913, February.
    20. Ping Zhou & Youneng Pan, 2015. "A comparative analysis of publication portfolios of selected economies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 825-842, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:91:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0576-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.