World Scientific
  • Search
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website

System Upgrade on Tue, Oct 25th, 2022 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.
Special Issue on Bibliometrics and Social Network Analysis Methods for Technology and Innovation Management (Part 2)No Access

Analyzing Funding Patterns and Their Evolution in Two Medical Research Topics

    This paper analyzes funding patterns and their evolution in two medical research topics: breast cancer and ovarian cancer, taking into account cross-agency and cross-national co-funding. A bibliometric analysis of 355463 papers from PubMed (273526 on breast cancer and 81937 on ovarian cancer) brought back 91 funding agencies involved in breast cancer and 65 in ovarian cancer. Additionally, the paper examined the evolution of medical subject headings (MESH) funded by agencies. An analysis of patterns in funding, co-funding, MESH, and their evolution, was carried out using social network analysis (SNA) methodology. The results show the importance of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in both breast and ovarian cancer. The NCI achieves its policy goals by co-funding its programs with both national and cross-national agencies. Moreover, the MESH agencies co-funded in the two years studied coincided; however, it must be said that the number of agencies which participated in research funding also increased.


    • Andersen, J. P., Bøgsted, M., Dybkær, K., Mellqvist, U. H., Morgan, G. J., Goldschmidt, H., Dimopoulos, M. A., Einsele, H., San Miguel, J., Palumbo, A., Sonneveld, P. and Hans Erik Johnsen, H. E. [2015] Global myeloma research clusters, output, and citations: A bibliometric mapping and clustering analysis. PLoS ONE, 10, 1: 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Barreto Lang, P., Castro Gouveia, F. and Leta, J. [2013] Cooperation in health: Mapping collaborative networks on the web. PLoS ONE, 8, 8: 1–7. Google Scholar
    • Bastian, M., Heymann, S. and Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Int. AAAI Conf. Weblogs and Social Media, North America, March 2009. Available at: [accessed on 21 February 2015]. Google Scholar
    • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G. and Johnson, J. C. [2013] Analyzing Social Networks. Sage Publications Ltd., London, UK. Google Scholar
    • Bozeman, B. [2000] Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research. Research Policy, 29, 4/5: 627–655. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Brickman, R. and Rip, A. [1979] Science policy advisory councils in France, the Netherlands, and the United States, 1957–1977: A comparative analysis. Social Studies of Science, 9, 2: 167–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Catalá-López, F., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Hutton, B., Aleixandre-Benavent, R. and Moher, D. [2014] Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: A social network analysis. BMC Medicine, 12, 15: 1–17. Google Scholar
    • Chakravarthy, R., Cotter, K., DiMasi, J., Milne, C. P. and Wendel, N. (2015). Public and private sector contributions to the research and development of the most transformational drugs of the last 25 years. A tufts center for the study of drig development white paper. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. Google Scholar
    • Chalmers, I., Bracken, M. B., Djulbegovic, B., Garattini, S., Grant, J., Gülmezoglu, A. M., Howells, D. W., Ioannidis, J. P. A. and Oliver, S. [2014] How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet, 383, 9912: 156–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Herrera, F. [2011] Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 7: 1382–1402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Cowan, R. [1991] Tortoises and hares: Choice among technologies of unknown merit. The Economic Journal, 101, 407: 801–814. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Cunningham, S. W. [2009] A comparative political theory of national science provision. Atlanta Conf. Science and Technology Policy, Atlanta, GA. Google Scholar
    • Cunningham, S. W. and Werker, C. [2012] Proximity and collaboration in European nanotechnology. Papers in Regional Science, 91, 4: 723–742. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Dasgupta, P. and David, P. A. [1994] Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 5: 487–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A. and Batagelj, V. [2012] Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
    • Doel, R. E. [2003] Constituting the post-war earth sciences: The military’s influence on the environmental sciences in the USA after 1945. Social Studies of Science, 33, 5: 635–666. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Esterle, L. and Picard, J. F. [2011] Between clinical medicine and the laboratory: Medical research funding in France from 1945 to the present. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 66, 4: 546–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Feng, F., Zhang, L., Du, Y. and Wang, W. [2015] Visualization and quantitative study in bibliographic databases: A case in the field of university–industry cooperation. Journal of Informetrics, 9: 118–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Hanneman, R. A. and Riddle, M. [2011] Concepts and measures for basic network analysis. The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis, Sage Publications Ltd., UK, pp. 340–369. Google Scholar
    • Kim, H. D., Lee, D. H., Choe, H. and Seo, I. W. [2014] The evolution of cluster network structure and firm growth: A study of industrial software clusters. Scientometrics, 99: 77–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Kolaczyk, E. D. [2009] Statistical Analysis of Network Data. Springer, New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Kumar, S. and Jan, J. M. [2013] Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010. Scientometrics, 97: 491–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Lassman, T. C. [2005] Government science in post-war America: Henry A. Wallace, Edward U. Condon, and the transformation of the National Bureau of Standards, 1945–1951. ISIS, 96, 1: 25–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Lewison, G. [1998] Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: Funding sources and impact. GUT, 43, 2: 288–293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Leydesdorff, L. and Zaal, R. [1988] Co-words and citations relations between document sets and environments. Informetrics, 87/88: 105–119. Google Scholar
    • Light, R. P., Polley, D. E. and Börner, K. [2014] Open data and open code for big science of science studies. Scientometrics, 101: 1535–1551. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Moses, H., Matheson, D. H. M., Cairns-Smith, S., George, B. P., Palisch, C. and Dorsey, E. R. [2015] The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA, 313, 2: 174–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S. and Olivastro, D. [1997] The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 3: 317–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Neff, M. W. and Corley, E. A. [2009] 35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics, 80, 3: 6579–6824. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Negro, S. O., Alkemade, F. and Hekkert, M. P. [2012] Why does renewable energy diffuse so slowly: A review of innovation system problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 6: 3836–3846. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. [2003] Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41: 179–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • OECD/European Union [2014] Screening, survival and mortality for breast cancer. In Health at a Glance: Europe 2014. OECD Publishing, Paris. Google Scholar
    • Ozcan, S. and Islam, N. [2013] Collaborative networks and technology clusters — The case of nanowire. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82: 155–131. Google Scholar
    • Porter, A. and Cunningham, S. W. [2005] Tech Mining. Exploiting New Technologies for Competitive Advantage. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey. Google Scholar
    • Qiu, J. P., Dong, K. and Yu, H. Q. [2014] Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 101, 2: 1345–1360. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Ramlogan, R. and Consoli, D. [2014] Dynamics of collaborative research medicine: The case of glaucoma. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39: 544–566. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Ravikumar, S., Agrahari, A. and Singh, S. N. [2015] Mapping the intellectual structure of scientometrics: A co-word analysis of the journal Scientometrics (2005–2010). Scientometrics, 102, 1: 929–955. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Schneider, W. H. [2014] The origin of the medical research grant in the United States: The Rockefeller Foundation and the NIH extramural funding program. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 70, 2: 279–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Siqueiros-García, J. M., Hernández-Lemus, E., García-Herrera, R. and Robina-Galatas, A. [2014] Mapping the structure and dynamics of genomics-related MESH terms complex networks. PLoS ONE, 9, 4: 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Sogaard, M., Kjaer, S. K. and Gayther, S. [2006] Ovarian cancer and genetic susceptibility in relation to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Occurrence, clinical importance and intervention. Acta Obstetricia and Gynecologica, 85: 93–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Stirling, A. [2007] A general framework for analysing diversity in science. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4, 15: 707–719. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Suominen, A. [2014] Phases of growth in a green tech research network: A bibliometric evaluation of fuel cell technology from 1991 to 2010. Scientometrics, 100, 1: 51–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Sutherland, W. J., Bellingan, L., Bellingham, J. R., Blackstock, J. J., Bloomfield, R. M., Bravo, M., Cadman, V. M., Cleevely, D. D., Clements, A., Cohen, A. S., Cope, D. R., Daemmrich, A. A., Devecchi, C., Anadon, L. D., Denegri, S., Doubleday, R., Dusic, N. R., Evans, R. J., Feng, W. Y., Godfray, H. C. J., Harris, P., Hartley, S. E., Hester, A. J., Holmes, J., Hughes, A., Hulme, M., Irwin, C., Jennings, R. C., Kass, G. S., Littlejohns, P., Marteau, T. M., McKee, G., Millstone, E. P., Nuttall, W. J., Owens, S., Parker, M. M., Pearson, S., Petts, J., Ploszek, R., Pullin, A. S., Reid, G., Richards, K. S., Robinson, J. G., Shaxson, L., Sierra, L., Smith, B. G., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Stilgoe, J., Stirling, A., Tyler, C. P., Winickoff, D. E. and Zimmern, R. L. [2012] A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. PLoS ONE, 7, 3: 1–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Swar, B. and Khan, G. F. [2014] Mapping ICT knowledge infrastructure in South Asia. Scientometrics, 99: 117–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Tahmooresnejad, L., Beaudry, C. and Schiffauerova, A. [2014] The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States. Scientometrics, 102, 1: 753–787. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • van Eck, N. J. and Waltman, L. [2010] Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84: 523–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Vanderelst, D. and Speybroeck, N. [2013] Scientometrics reveals funding priorities in medical research policy. Journal of Informetrics, 7: 240–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Weinberg, A. [1962] Criteria for scientific choice. Minerva, 1, 2: 158–171. Google Scholar
    • Yu, C., Davis, C. and Dijkema, G. P. J. [2013] Understanding the evolution of industrial symbiosis research a bibliometric and network analysis (1997–2012). Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18, 2: 280–293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Zhang, C., Yu, Q., Fan, Q. and Duan, Z. [2013] Research collaboration in health management research communities. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13, 52: 1–13. Google Scholar
    • Zhang, J., Xie, J., Hou, W., Tu, X., Xu, J., Song, F., Wang, Z. and Lu, Z. [2012] Mapping the knowledge structure of research on patient adherence: Knowledge domain visualization-based co-word analysis and social network analysis. PLoS ONE, 7, 4: 1–7. Google Scholar
    • Zhou, P. and Tian, H. [2014] Funded collaboration research in mathematics in China. Scientometrics, 99: 695–715. CrossrefGoogle Scholar