Skip to main content
Log in

Measuring characteristics of scientific research: A comparison of bibliographic and survey data

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three characteristics of scientific research (subject matter, researchers' institutional sectors, and funding sources) were compared using bibliographic and survey data from a study of restorative dental materials research. Both types of data yielded similar findings on the distribution of research across subject areas and the distribution of researchers in government, university and industry sectors. Findings on the sources of research funding, however, were dissimilar and university research support appeared underreported in the bibliographic data. In general, data on publications (from bibliographic files or surveys) yielded lower estimates of industrial participation in research than data pertaining to projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. W. Zumeta,Extending the Educational Ladder: The Changing Quality and Value of Postdoctoral Study, Lexington, MA, D. C. Heath, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H.H. Garrison, P.W. Brown,The Career Achievements of NIH Postdoctoral Trainees and Fellows, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A.M. Cartter,An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education, Washington, DC, American Council on Education, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  4. K.D. Roose, C.J. Anderson,A Rating of Graduate Programs, Washington, DC, American Council on Education, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. Blumenthal, M. Gluck, K.S. Louis, D. Wise, Industrial support of university research in biotechnology,Science, 231 (1986) 242–246.

    Google Scholar 

  6. B.F. Reskin, Sex differences in status attainment in science: The case of the postdoctoral fellowship,American Sociological Review, 41(1976) 597–612.

    Google Scholar 

  7. B.F. Reskin, Scientific productivity and the reward structure in science,American Sociological Review, 42(1977) 491–504.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J.S. Long, P.D. Allison, R. McGinnis, Entry into the academic career,American Sociological Review, 44(1979) 816–830.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J.S. Long, R. McGinnis, Organizational context and scientific productivity,American Sociological Review, 46(1981) 422–442.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. McGinnis, P.D. Allison, J.S. Long, Postdoctoral training in bioscience: Allocation and outcomes,Social Forces, 60(1982) 701–722.

    Google Scholar 

  11. L.V. Jones, G. Lindzey, P. Coggeshall (Eds),An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Biological Sciences, Washington, DC., National Academy Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  12. B.R. Martin, J. Irvine, CERN: Past performance and future prospects, Part I. CERN's Position in world high-energy physics,Research Policy, 13(1984) 183–210.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Applied Management Sciences,Assessment of NIH, Industry and Academic Relationships in Restorative Dental Materials Research. Final Report to the National Institute of Dental Research, National Institutes of Health as part of Contract No. 263-87-C-0269 (1989). Copies of this report may be requested fromH. Garrison.

  14. Case studies and patent analyses were also used in the original study. However, these methods covered different stages of the R&D process and were less directly comparable to the two methods discussed here.

  15. A decision was made to exclude individuals with brief or minor participation in the field. These individuals would be difficult to locate and were expected to be less motivated to respond to a dental materials survey than active researchers in the field. Individuals who appeared only once as coauthors were dropped from the survey frame, while researchers who weresole author of an article or co-authors of more than one article were retained.

  16. This definition of the study population did not prohibit the examination of collaboration involving industry researchers. It did require, however, that collaboration be studied from the perspective of the more completely enumerated government and academic researchers.

  17. A separate survey of research sponsors achieved a response rate of 80 percent. The number of projects reported by sponsors and the combined budgets of these activities were very similar to the totals derived from the principal investigators portion of the research performers survey (seeApplied Management Sciences 1989 for details).

  18. These were defined as projects with external funding or internal funds earmarked for research under the direct control of the investigator.

  19. Analyses showed that over 98 percent of the articles cited in dental materials articles published in theJournal of Dental Research over a four year period were indexed by these three data files (seeApplied Management Sciences 1989: Appendix A).

  20. Deleting rows with expected frequencies less than five and combining the two main outlying categories (casting alloys and general properties research), the null hypothesis could not be rejected in the one-sample goodness of fit test. With eight degrees of freedom, the chi-square value of 8.60 has a probability value greater than 0.30.

  21. Free standing research institutes and other not-for-profit foundations were classified with universities and other academic institutions.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garrison, H.H., Herman, S.S. & Lipton, J.A. Measuring characteristics of scientific research: A comparison of bibliographic and survey data. Scientometrics 24, 359–370 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017915

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017915

Keywords

Navigation