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

Blanca De-Miguel-Molina

Management Department, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, Building 7D, Valencia 46022, Spain

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Corresponding author.

Search for more papers by this author

Scott W. Cunningham

Multi-Actor Systems Department, TU Delft, Jaffalaan 5, Delft, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Fernando Palop

Management Department, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, Building 7D, Valencia 46022, Spain

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877017400107Cited by:2 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

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.

Keywords:

References

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. Crossref, Google 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: $⟨$ http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/09/paper/view/154/1009 $⟩$ [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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google Scholar
Cowan, R. [1991] Tortoises and hares: Choice among technologies of unknown merit. The Economic Journal, 101, 407: 801–814. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. and David, P. A. [1994] Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 5: 487–521. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google Scholar
Kolaczyk, E. D. [2009] Statistical Analysis of Network Data. Springer, New York. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google Scholar
Lewison, G. [1998] Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: Funding sources and impact. GUT, 43, 2: 288–293. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. [2003] Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41: 179–194. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google Scholar
Ramlogan, R. and Consoli, D. [2014] Dynamics of collaborative research medicine: The case of glaucoma. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39: 544–566. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google Scholar
Stirling, A. [2007] A general framework for analysing diversity in science. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4, 15: 707–719. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google Scholar
Swar, B. and Khan, G. F. [2014] Mapping ICT knowledge infrastructure in South Asia. Scientometrics, 99: 117–137. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google Scholar
van Eck, N. J. and Waltman, L. [2010] Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84: 523–538. Crossref, Google Scholar
Vanderelst, D. and Speybroeck, N. [2013] Scientometrics reveals funding priorities in medical research policy. Journal of Informetrics, 7: 240–247. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google 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. Crossref, Google Scholar