Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Research funding and citations in papers of Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, 2019-2020 Cover

Research funding and citations in papers of Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, 2019-2020

By: Mario Coccia and  Saeed Roshani  
Open Access
|May 2024

References

  1. Ali, A. and Nazim, M. (2023). Does funded research have a greater scholarly impact? A study of funded and non-funded research published in high-impact library and information science journals. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-03-2023-0102
  2. Ardito L., Coccia M., Messeni Petruzzelli A. (2021). Technological exaptation and crisis management: Evidence from COVID-19 outbreaks. R&D Management, 51(4), 381-392. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12455
  3. Bjørk R. (2019). The age at which Nobel Prize research is conducted. Scientometrics, 119, 931-939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03065-4
  4. Bjørk R. (2020). The journals in physics that publish Nobel Prize research. Scientometrics, 122, 817-823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03312-8
  5. Boyack K.W. (2004). Mapping knowledge domains: Characterizing PNAS. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 101: 5192-5199.
  6. Boyack K.W., Klavans R., Börner K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351-374.
  7. Clements J. C. (2017). Open access articles receive more citations in hybrid marine ecology journals. Facets, 2(1), 1-14.
  8. Coccia M. (2005). A Scientometric model for the assessment of scientific research performance within public institutes. Scientometrics, 65(3), 307-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0276-1
  9. Coccia M. (2008). Measuring scientific performance of public research units for strategic change. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.04.001
  10. Coccia M. (2008a). Spatial mobility of knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity: analysis and measurement of the impact within the geoeconomic space. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9032-4
  11. Coccia M. (2009). Bureaucratization in public research institutions, Minerva, A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 47(1), 31-50. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41821483
  12. Coccia M. (2014). Converging scientific fields and new technological paradigms as main drivers of the division of scientific labour in drug discovery process: the effects on strategic management of the R&D corporate change. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(7), 733-749. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2014.882501
  13. Coccia M. (2018). General properties of the evolution of research fields: a scientometric study of human microbiome, evolutionary robotics and astrobiology. Scientometrics, 117(2), 1265-1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2902-8
  14. Coccia M. (2018a). Motivation and theory of self-determination: Some management implications in organizations. Journal of Economics Bibliography, 5(4), 223-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jeb.v5i4.1792
  15. Coccia M. (2018b). Classification of innovation considering technological interaction. Journal of Economics Bibliography-J. Econ. Bib., 5(2), 76-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jeb.v5i2.1650
  16. Coccia M. (2019). Why do nations produce science advances and new technology? Technology in Society, 59, November, n. 101124, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.03.007
  17. Coccia M. (2019a). The Role of Superpowers in Conflict Development and Resolutions. A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3709-1
  18. Coccia M. (2019b). Comparative Institutional Changes. A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1277-1
  19. Coccia M. (2019c). Destructive technologies as driving forces of new technological cycles for industrial and corporate change. Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 6(4), 252-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jest.v6i4.1973
  20. Coccia M. (2019d). Metabolism of public research organizations: how do laboratories consume state subsidies? Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 19(4), 473-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-018-0421-y
  21. Coccia M. (2019e). Intrinsic and extrinsic incentives to support motivation and performance of public organizations. Journal of Economics Bibliography, 6(1), 20-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jeb.v6i1.1795
  22. Coccia M. (2020). The evolution of scientific disciplines in applied sciences: dynamics and empirical properties of experimental physics. Scientometrics, 124, 451-487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03464-y
  23. Coccia M. (2020a). Fishbone diagram for technological analysis and foresight. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, Vol. 14, Nos. 2/3/4, 225-247. DOI: 10.1504/IJFIP.2020.111221
  24. Coccia M. (2020b). Destructive Technologies for Industrial and Corporate Change. In: Farazmand A. (eds), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3972-1
  25. Coccia M. (2021). Evolution and structure of research fields driven by crises and environmental threats: the COVID-19 research. Scientometrics, 126(12), 9405-9429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04172-x
  26. Coccia M. (2022). Probability of discoveries between research fields to explain scientific and technological change. Technology in Society, vol. 68, February, n. 101874, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101874
  27. Coccia M., Bozeman B. (2016). Allometric models to measure and analyze the evolution of international research collaboration. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2027-x
  28. Coccia M., Falavigna G., Manello A. (2015). The impact of hybrid public and market-oriented financing mechanisms on scientific portfolio and performances of public research labs: a scientometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102(1), 151-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1427-z
  29. Coccia M., Ghazinoori S., Roshani S. (2023). Evolutionary Pathways of Ecosystem Literature in Organization and Management Studies. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2499460/v1
  30. Coccia M., Rolfo S. (2008). Strategic change of public research units in their scientific activity. Technovation, 28(8), 485-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.005
  31. Coccia M., Wang L. (2016). Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(8), 2057-2061. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1510820113
  32. Coccia M., Roshani S. (2024). General laws of funding for scientific citations: how citations change in funded and unfunded research between basic and applied sciences. Journal of Data and Information Science, 9(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2024-0001
  33. Coccia M., Mosleh M., Roshani S., (2024a). Evolution of Quantum Computing: Theoretical and Innovation Management Implications for Emerging Quantum Industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 2270-2280, DOI (identifier) 10.1109/TEM.2022.3175633
  34. Coccia M. (2008b). New organizational behaviour of public research institutions: Lessons learned from Italian case study. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 2(4), 402-419. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJB
  35. Coccia M. (2010). Spatial patterns of technology transfer and measurement of its friction in the geo-economic space. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 9(3), 255-267. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTTC.2010.030214
  36. Coccia M. (2018c). Competition between basic and applied research in the organizational behaviour of public research labs. Journal of Economics Library, 5(2), 118-133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jel.v5i2.1652
  37. Coccia M. (2019f). Theories of Self-determination. A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3710-1
  38. Coccia M. (2020c). How does science advance? Theories of the evolution of science. Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 7(3), 153-180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jest.v7i3.2111IR.2008.018589
  39. Cole S., Cole J. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32, 377-390.
  40. Dewett T., Denisi A.S. (2004). Exploring scholarly reputation: It’s more than just productivity. Scientometrics, 60, 249-272. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000027796.55585.61
  41. Fanelli D., Glänzel W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One, 8(6), e66938.
  42. Fortunato S., Bergstrom C. T., Börner K., Evans J. A., Helbing D., Milojević, S., Petersen A. M., Radicchi F., Sinatra R., Uzzi B., Vespignani A., Waltman L., Wang D., Barabási A.-L. (2018). Science of science. Science, 359(6378). DOI: 10.1126/science.aao0185
  43. Frame J.D., Carpenter M.P. (1979). International research collaboration. Soc Stud Sci, 9(4), 481-497.
  44. Heinze T., Fuchs J.E. (2022). National and organizational patterns of Nobel laureate careers in physiology/medicine, physics, and chemistry. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04250-0
  45. Heyard, R., Hottenrott H. (2021). The value of research funding for knowledge creation and dissemination: A study of SNSF research Grants. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-16. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00891-x
  46. Hollingsworth J.R., (2006). A path-dependent perspective on institutional and organizational factors shaping major scientific discoveries. In: Hage, J., Meeus, M. (Eds.), Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change. Oxford University Press, UK.
  47. Hu X. J, Rousseau R. (2016). Nobel Prize winners: Igniting or sparking foundational publications? Scientometrics, 110, 1053-1063 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2205-x
  48. Huang, Y. R., Tian, C. L., Ma, Y. F. (2023). Practical operation and theoretical basis of difference-in-difference regression in science of science: The comparative trial on the scientific performance of Nobel laureates versus their coauthors. Journal of Data and Information Science, 8(1), 29-46
  49. Kademani B., Kalyane V., Kumar V. et al. (2005). Nobel laureates: Their publication productivity, collaboration and authorship status. Scientometrics, 62, 261-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0019-3
  50. Katz J. S. (2016). What is a complex innovation system? PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0156150. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156150.
  51. Kitcher P. (2001). Science, Truth, and Democracy, Oxford Univ Press, New York.
  52. Klavans R., Boyack K.W. (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol, 60, 455-476.
  53. Kosmulski M. (2020). Nobel laureates are not hot. Scientometrics, 123, 487-495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03378-9
  54. Leguendre P., Leguendre L. (2012). Numerical ecology. London: Elsevier B. V. 3rd ed., vol. 24.
  55. Lewison, G., Dawson, G. (1998). The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research. Scientometrics, 41, 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457963
  56. Li E.Y., Liao C.H., Yen H.R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515-1530.
  57. Li X., Rousseau R., Liang, L. M. et al. (2022). Is low interdisciplinarity of references an unexpected characteristic of Nobel Prize winning research? Scientometrics, 127, 2105-2122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04290-0
  58. Ma C. F., Su C., Yuan, J. P. et al. (2012). Papers written by Nobel Prize winners in physics before they won the prize: an analysis of their language and journal of publication. Scientometrics, 93, 1151-1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0748-z
  59. Ma, L. (2021). The steering effects of citations and metrics. Journal of Documentation, 77(2), 420-431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2020-0093
  60. Mabe M. A, Amin M. (2002). Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: Author- reader asymmetries in scholarly publishing. Aslib Proceedings, 54(3), 149-157.
  61. MacLean M., Davies C., Lewison G., Anderson J.(1998). Evaluating the research activity and impact of funding agencies. Research Evaluation, 7(1), 7-16.
  62. Makino J. (1998). Productivity of research groups-relation between citation analysis and reputation within research communities. Scientometrics, 43, 87-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458398
  63. Mannion, R., Marini, G., Street, A. (2008). Implementing payment by results in the English NHS: Changing incentives and the role of information. Journal of Health, Organisation and Management, 22(1), 79-88.
  64. Merton R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79(4), 606-623.
  65. Morillo F. (2020). Is open access publication useful for all research fields? Presence of funding, collaboration and impact. Scientometrics, 125, 689-716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03652-w
  66. Mosleh M., Roshani S., Coccia M. (2022). Scientific laws of research funding to support citations and diffusion of knowledge in life science. Scientometrics, 127, 1931-1951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04300-1
  67. Pagliaro M., Coccia M. (2021). How self-determination of scholars outclasses shrinking public research lab budgets, supporting scientific production: a case study and R&D management implications. Heliyon, 7(1), e05998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e05998
  68. Pao M.L. (1991). On the relationship of funding and research publications. Scientometrics, 20, 257-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018158
  69. Petersen A.M., Fortunato S., Pan R.K., Kaski K., Penner O., Rungi A., Riccaboni M., Stanley H.E., Pammolli F. (2014). Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 111(43), 15316-153
  70. Quinlan K. M., Kane M., Trochim W. M. K. (2008). Evaluation of large research initiatives: Outcomes, challenges, and methodological considerations. In C. L. S. Coryn & M. Scriven (Eds.), Reforming the evaluation of research. New Directions for Evaluation, 118, 61-72.
  71. Rodríguez-Navarro, A. (2011). Measuring research excellence: Number of Nobel Prize achievements versus conventional bibliometric indicators. Journal of Documentation, 67(4), 582-600. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111145007
  72. Ronda-Pupo G. A., Katz J. S. (2016). The power-law relationship between citation-based performance and collaboration in articles in management journals: A scale-independent approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(10), 2565-2572. doi.org/10.1002/asi.23575.
  73. Ronda-Pupo G. A., Katz J. S. (2017). The scaling relationship between citation-based performance and coauthorship patterns in natural sciences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(5), 1257-1265. doi.org/10.1002/asi.23759
  74. Roshani S., Bagherylooieh M. R., Mosleh M., Coccia M. (2021). What is the relationship between research funding and citation-based performance? A comparative analysis between critical disciplines. Scientometrics, 126(9), 7859-7874. doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04077-9
  75. Saam N.J., Reiter L. (1999). Lotka’s law reconsidered: The evolution of publication and citation distributions in scientific fields. Scientometrics, 44, 135-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457376
  76. Sen, B.K., Pandalai, T.A. and Karanjai, A. (1998). Ranking of scientists – a new approach. Journal of Documentation, 54(5), 622-628. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007184
  77. Simonton D.K. (2004). Psychology’s status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Rev Gen Psychol, 8(1), 59-67.
  78. Small H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol, 50(3), 799-813.
  79. Small H., Tseng H., Patek M. (2017). Discovering discoveries: Identifying biomedical discoveries using citation contexts. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 46-62. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.001
  80. Smith L.D., Best L.A., Stubbs D.A., Johnston J., Bastiani A.A. (2000). Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Soc Stud Sci, 30(1), 73-94.
  81. Stephan P. E. (1996). The Economics of Science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199-1235, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2729500
  82. Storer N.W. (1967). The hard sciences and the soft: Some sociological observations. Bull Med Libr Assoc, 55(1), 75-84.
  83. Turki H., Hadj Taieb, M.A., Ben Aouicha M. (2020). Facts to consider when analyzing the references of Nobel Prize scientific background. Scientometrics, 124, 787-790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03456-y
  84. Urde, M. and Greyser, S.A. (2015). The Nobel Prize: the identity of a corporate heritage brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(4), 318-332. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-11-2014-0749
  85. Wang J., Shapira P. (2011). Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 87(3), 563-586.
  86. Wang J., Shapira P. (2015). Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers. PloS one, 10(2), doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117727.
  87. Web of Science. (2022). Web of Science, Search in: Web of Science Core Collection, http://apps.webofknowledge.com/WOS_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=WOS&SID=E5lSYgaLwJn6kp2iz2G&search_mode=GeneralSearch (Accessed 24 February 2022)
  88. Wen, F. F. (2019). Study on the research evolution of Nobel laureates 2018 based on self-citation network. Journal of Documentation, 75(6), 1416-1431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2019-0027
  89. Yan E., Wu C. J., Song M. (2018). The funding factor: A cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact. Scientometrics, 115(1), 369-384.
  90. Zhang, T. Y., Tan, F., Yu, C., Wu, J. X. & Xu, J. (2023). Understanding relationship between topic selection and academic performance of scientific teams based on entity popularity trend. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 75(3), 561-588. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2022-0135
  91. Zhao S. X., Lou W., Tan A. M., Yu S. (2018). Do funded papers attract more usage? Scientometrics, 115(1), 153-168.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2024-0006 | Journal eISSN: 2543-683X | Journal ISSN: 2096-157X
Language: English
Page range: 56 - 80
Submitted on: Jul 24, 2023
Accepted on: Oct 10, 2023
Published on: May 27, 2024
Published by: Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2024 Mario Coccia, Saeed Roshani, published by Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.