Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018627128 = product of:
  0.04656782 = sum of:
    0.029859845 = weight(_text_:r in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029859845 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13607219 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041106213 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.016707974 = product of:
      0.033415947 = sum of:
        0.033415947 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033415947 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14394696 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041106213 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

0.008445639 = product of:
  0.042228196 = sum of:
    0.042228196 = weight(_text_:r in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042228196 = score(doc=2224,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13607219 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041106213 = queryNorm
        0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."

0.008263879 = product of:
  0.041319396 = sum of:
    0.041319396 = weight(_text_:u in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041319396 = score(doc=1110,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13460001 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041106213 = queryNorm
        0.30697915 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Using data from the Web of Science (WoS), we analyze the mutual information among university, industry, and government addresses (U-I-G) at the country level for a number of countries. The dynamic evolution of the Triple Helix can thus be compared among developed and developing nations in terms of cross-sectional coauthorship relations. The results show that the Triple Helix interactions among the three subsystems U-I-G become less intensive over time, but unequally for different countries. We suggest that globalization erodes local Triple Helix relations and thus can be expected to have increased differentiation in national systems since the mid-1990s. This effect of globalization is more pronounced in developed countries than in developing ones. In the dynamic analysis, we focus on a more detailed comparison between China and the United States. Specifically, the Chinese Academy of the (Social) Sciences is changing increasingly from a public research institute to an academic one, and this has a measurable effect on China's position in the globalization.

0.007038033 = product of:
  0.035190165 = sum of:
    0.035190165 = weight(_text_:r in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035190165 = score(doc=70,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13607219 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041106213 = queryNorm
        0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Multivariate linear regression models suggest a trade-off in allocations of national research and development (R&D). Government funding and spending in the higher education sector encourage publications as a long-term research benefit. Conversely, other components such as industrial funding and spending in the business sector encourage patenting. Our results help explain why the United States trails the European Union in publications: The focus in the United States is on industrial funding-some 70% of its total R&D investment. Likewise, our results also help explain why the European Union trails the United States in patenting, since its focus on government funding is less effective than industrial funding in predicting triadic patenting. Government funding contributes negatively to patenting in a multiple regression, and this relationship is significant in the case of triadic patenting. We provide new forecasts about the relationships of the United States, the European Union, and China for publishing; these results suggest much later dates for changes than previous forecasts because Chinese growth has been slowing down since 2003. Models for individual countries might be more successful than regression models whose parameters are averaged over a set of countries because nations can be expected to differ historically in terms of the institutional arrangements and funding schemes.

0.0027846624 = product of:
  0.013923312 = sum of:
    0.013923312 = product of:
      0.027846623 = sum of:
        0.027846623 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027846623 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14394696 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041106213 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07