Abstract
Qantitative analysis of the interrelation of “big” and “little” science on the example of Research and Development of higher education in the USA has been made. The difference in the growth rates of “big” and “little” science is explained with the help of scientometric index of capital expenditures per researcher. An attempt has been made to compare the dynamics of efficiency of “big” and “little” science on the base of mean duration of a research project. Possibilities of an alternative index of a relative amount of preliminary researches (preprojects) are pointed out.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
D. DE SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University press, New York, 1963.
Summed up: Federal funds for Research and Development, W., G. P. O., 1971–1983; National Patterns of Science and Technology Resources, W., G. P. O., 1984.
W. KENT, The big twenty and the others,Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 26 (1975) 1.
Summed up: National Science Foundation Annual Report, W., G. P. O., 1956; Ibid. W. KENT, The big twenty and the others,Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 26 (1981). NCI Fact Book, Beth. (Md), 1977; 1981.
Summed up: National Science Foundation Grants and Awards, W., G. P. O., 1957; Ibid. W. KENT, The big twenty and the others,Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 26 (1981).
J.T. CALBERER, Jr. Grant length and budget stability at the National Institutes of Health,Science, 211 (1981) 675.
V. V. NALIMOV,Prymenenie Matematichescoy Statisyici pri Analyse Veshestva, Moskva, Fizmatgiz., 1960.
M. J. MORAVCSIK and papers of other authors,Scientometrics, 1984–1985.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Puzikov, M.D., Kasjanov, A.E. Quantitative estimation of “big” and “little” science interrelation. Scientometrics 11, 99–104 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016633
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016633