Open countries have strong science

Wagner, Caroline S.; Jonkers, Koen

doi:10.1038/550032a

Cited by 78 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the effect is small. Government funding tends to have a negative or negligible effect Wagner and Jonkers (2017) and use GBARD (OECD, 2017, p. 2;cf. Luwel, 2004, p. 327), and not Gross Expenditure in R&D (GERD) or Higher-Education Expenditure in R&D (HERD).…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To view the national impact of international collaboration, Wagner and Jonkers () assigned articles and impact measures to countries using fractional counting and a field‐weighted citation index (FWCI), as defined by the Scopus team at Elsevier (Plume & Kamalski, ). They found “a clear correlation between a nation's scientific influence and the links it fosters with foreign researchers.” (p. 32).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To test the hypothesis further, we scaled up to a decade of data (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013) using the funding data (Government Budget Allocations for R&D; GBARD) 1 of 35 OECD member states and seven affiliated economies, 2 on the one side, and using our access to an in-house version of the Web of Science (WoS) developed and maintained by the Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL, Munich), on the other. As in the study of Wagner and Jonkers (2017), we assume a delay of 2 years between funding and output and accordingly use OECD funding data for the period 2001-2011. 3 Because we have a time-series of observations, the publication year of the articles was added to the model as a third independent variable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We follow Wagner and Jonkers () and use GBARD (OECD, , p. 2; cf. Luwel, , p. 327), and not Gross Expenditure in R&D (GERD) or Higher‐Education Expenditure in R&D (HERD).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Relative Influences of Government Funding and International Collaboration on Citation Impact

Leydesdorff

Bornmann

Wagner

2018

Asso for Info Science & Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We follow Wagner and Jonkers () and use GBARD (OECD, , p. 2; cf. Luwel, , p. 327), and not Gross Expenditure in R&D (GERD) or Higher‐Education Expenditure in R&D (HERD).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Relative Influences of Government Funding and International Collaboration on Citation Impact

Leydesdorff

Bornmann

Wagner

2018

Asso for Info Science & Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even with respect to the healthy progress of “normal” science (Kuhn, ), many scientists and science managers believe that young researchers should build their career in settings other than that of their PhD supervisor. Indeed, several recent studies detected a positive relationship between scientific quality and the mobility of scientists within a specific country (Adams, ; Sugimoto et al., ; Wagner & Jonkers, ). The take‐home message is that, from a scientific perspective, it thus seems very worthwhile to motivate mobility.…”

Section: Incentives For Mobility and Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective

Meirmans

Butlin

Charmantier

et al. 2019

J of Evolutionary Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different funding agencies. We also assess whether and how funding effectiveness might be improved. We focused this assessment on 14 elements within four broad categories: (a) topical shaping of science, (b) distribution of funds, (c) application and review procedures, and (d) incentives for mobility and diversity. These comparisons revealed striking among‐country variation in those elements, including wide variation in funding rates, the effort and burden required for grant applications, and the extent of emphasis on societal relevance and individual mobility. We use these observations to provide constructive suggestions for the future and urge the need to further gather informed considerations from scientists on the effects of funding policies on science across countries and research fields.

show abstract

Higher Education and the Exponential Rise of Science: Competition and Collaboration

Powell

2018

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How we collaborate and compete to find solutions to the problems and challenges of our age vastly impacts our individual and group success and well-being. Interdependent, the institutions of education and science have dramatically expanded. Today, scientists in nearly all countries contribute to our shared stores of knowledge, with research universities the driving force behind unexpected pure exponential growth in scientific production. Competition-regional, national, organizational, and individual-has become more potent-with performance measures, comparative indicators, and formal evaluations continuously generated and used in decision-making. Simultaneously, collaboration across institutional, disciplinary, organizational, and cultural boundaries expands the possibilities of discovery and produces the most influential science. Competition and collaboration at the nexus of higher education and science demand enhanced attention as they shape the future of scientific innovation and production, with its understudied yet increasingly incontrovertible effects on individuals and societies.

show abstract

Open countries have strong science

Cited by 78 publications

References 6 publications

The Relative Influences of Government Funding and International Collaboration on Citation Impact

The Relative Influences of Government Funding and International Collaboration on Citation Impact

Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective

Higher Education and the Exponential Rise of Science: Competition and Collaboration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About