, Volume 87, Issue 3, pp 563–586 | Cite as

Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology



There is increasing interest in assessing how sponsored research funding influences the development and trajectory of science and technology. Traditionally, linkages between research funding and subsequent results are hard to track, often requiring access to separate funding or performance reports released by researchers or sponsors. Tracing research sponsorship and output linkages is even more challenging when researchers receive multiple funding awards and collaborate with a variety of differentially-sponsored research colleagues. This article presents a novel bibliometric approach to undertaking funding acknowledgement analysis which links research outputs with their funding sources. Using this approach in the context of nanotechnology research, the article probes the funding patterns of leading countries and agencies including patterns of cross-border research sponsorship. We identify more than 91,500 nanotechnology articles published worldwide during a 12-month period in 2008–2009. About 67% of these publications include funding acknowledgements information. We compare articles reporting funding with those that do not (for reasons that may include reliance on internal core-funding rather than external awards as well as omissions in reporting). While we find some country and field differences, we judge that the level of reporting of funding sources is sufficiently high to provide a basis for analysis. The funding acknowledgement data is used to compare nanotechnology funding policies and programs in selected countries and to examine their impacts on scientific output. We also examine the internationalization of research funding through the interplay of various funding sources at national and organizational levels. We find that while most nanotechnology funding is nationally-oriented, internationalization and knowledge exchange does occur as researchers collaborate across borders. Our method offers a new approach not only in identifying the funding sources of publications but also in feasibly undertaking large-scale analyses across scientific fields, institutions and countries.


Funding acknowledgement analysis Research funding Research sponsorship Nanotechnology Research outputs Publications Bibliometrics 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

91B82 91C99 

JEL Classification

C81 H59 I28 O32 O38 


  1. Adams, J. D., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales d’Economie et de Statisque, 49/50, 127–162.Google Scholar
  2. Baird, D., & Shew, A. (2004). Probing the history of scanning tunneling microscopy. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, S., & Aston, A. (2005). The business of nanotech. Business Week. Feb 14, 64–71.Google Scholar
  4. Boyack, K. W., & Borner, K. (2003). Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: visualizing the influence of grants on the number of citation counts of research papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy, 27(8), 807–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broadhead, R. S., & Rist, R. C. (1976). Gatekeepers and the social control of social research. Social Problems, 23(3), 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, L. (2001). Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data. Research Evaluation, 10(1), 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, D., Picard-Aitken, M., Cote, G., Caruso, J., Valentim, R., Edmonds, S., et al. (2010). Bibliometrics as a performance measurement tool for research evaluation: The case of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (1999). Citation, funding acknowledgement and author nationality relationships in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation, 55(4), 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drexler, E. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2004). Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Brussels: DG Research.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission (2009). Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 20052009, Second Implementation Report 20072009. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from
  13. Gaughan, M., & Bozeman, B. (2002). Using curriculum vitae to compare some impacts of NSF research grants with research center funding. Research Evaluation, 11(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griliches, Z. (1985). Productivity, R&D, and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. NBER Working Paper No. W1547. Boston, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  15. Harter, S. P., & Hooten, P. A. (1992). Information science and scientists: JASIS, 1972–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 583–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Senker, J., & Kuhlmann, S. (2007). Identifying creative research accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics. Scientometrics, 70(1), 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hicks, D., Albert, M., Breitzman, T., & Cheney, P. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of core papers fundamental to tissue engineering. Haddon Heights: CHI Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Huang, Z., Chen, H., Li, X., & Roco, M. C. (2006). Connecting NSF funding to patent innovation in nanotechnology (2001–2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 859–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joint Economic Committee. (2007). Nanotechnology: The future is coming sooner than you think. Washington: US Congress.Google Scholar
  20. Kearnes, M., & Wienroth, M. (2009). ‘Arm’s length’? Narratives of impact and autonomy in UK Research Councils. Working Paper. ESRC Project on Strategic Science: Research Intermediaries and the Governance of Innovation. UK: Department of Geography, Durham University.Google Scholar
  21. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometrics and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13, 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewison, G., & Carding, P. (2003). Evaluating UK research in speech and language therapy. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 38, 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lichtenberg, F. R. (1985). Assessing the impact of federal industrial r&d expenditures on private r&d activity. Papers commissioned for a workshop on the federal role in research and development. The National Academies Press, pp. 115–150.Google Scholar
  24. Lux Research. (2004). The nanotech report: investment overview and market research for nanotechnology. New York: Lux Research.Google Scholar
  25. Lux Research. (2006). The nanotech report (4th ed.): Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology. New York: Lux Research.Google Scholar
  26. Lux Research. (2007). Top nations in nanotech see their lead erode. New York: Lux Research.Google Scholar
  27. Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing. American Economic Review, 70(5), 863–873.Google Scholar
  28. Mansfield, E. (1981). How economists see R&D. Harvard Business Review, 59(6), 98–106.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, B., Salter, A., Hicks, D., Pavitt, K., Senker, J. Sharp, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (1996). The relationship between publicly funded basic research and economic performance: A SPRU review. Report prepared for HM treasury. University of Sussex, Brighton.Google Scholar
  30. McAllister, P.R., Narin, F., & Corrigan, J.G. (1983). Programmatic evaluation and comparison based on standardized citation scores. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-30, 4.Google Scholar
  31. OMB. (1993). Government Performance Results Act of 1993. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of Management and Budget.Google Scholar
  32. OTA. (1986). Research funding as an investment: Can we measure the returns? A technical memorandum. OTA-TMSET-36. Washington: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
  33. OTA. (1991). Federally funded research: Decisions for a decade. OTA-SET-490. Washington: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
  34. Paasi, M. (1998). Efficiency of innovation systems in the transition countries. Economic Systems, 22(3), 217–234.Google Scholar
  35. Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy, 20, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Payne, A. A., & Siow, A. (2003). Does federal research funding increase university research output? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1), Article 1.Google Scholar
  37. PCAST. (2005). The national nanotechnology initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the national nanotechnology advisory panel. Washington: The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).Google Scholar
  38. Peterson, C. (1991). Nanotechnology race: MITI adopts ‘Bottom-Up’ strategy. Foresight Update 12, August 1.
  39. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rigby, J. (2011). Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for publications: An examination of new dimensions and new controversies for bibliometrics. Manchester Business School, Working Paper, No. 611. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  42. Roco, M. C. (2007). National nanotechnology initiative—past, present, future. In W. A. Goddard, D. Brenner, S. E. Lyshevski, & G. J. Iafrate (Eds.), Handbook on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  43. Sandstrom, U. (2009). Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics, 79(2), 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sarewitz, D. (1997). Social change and science policy. Issues in Science and Technology, XIII(4), 29–32.Google Scholar
  45. Sargent, J. F. (2008). Nanotechnology and U.S: Competitiveness. Issues and Options. RL34493. Washington: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  46. Science and Technology Committee. (2004). Science and technology—fifth report. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  47. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2007). R&D policy in the United States: The promotion of nanotechnology R&D. Monitoring and analysis of policies and public financing instruments conducive to higher levels of R&D investmentsThe “Policy Mix” Project. European Commission, DG Research (DG-RTD-2005-M-01-02). Accessed 4 Nov 2010.
  48. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2010). Follow the money: What was the impact of the nanotechnology funding boom of the past ten years? Nature, 468, 627–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Takemura, M. (2005). Strategic promotion of nanotechnology R&D in Japan. Tsukuba-City: National Institute for Materials Science.Google Scholar
  51. Terleckyj, N. E. (1974). Effects of R&D on the productivity growth of industries: An exploratory study. Washington: National Planning Association.Google Scholar
  52. Terleckyj, N. E. (1985). Measuring economic effects of federal R&D expenditures: Recent history with special emphasis on federal R&D performed in industry. Papers commissioned for a workshop on the federal role in research and development. Washington: The National Academies Press, pp. 151–172.Google Scholar
  53. Thomson Reuters. (2010). Funding acknowledgements. Accessed 2 May 2010.
  54. Trochim, W. M., Marcus, S. E., Masse, L. C., Mose, R. P., & Weld, P. C. (2008). The evaluation of large research initiatives: a participatory integrative mixed-methods approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uldrich, J., & Newberry, D. (2003). The next big thing is really small: How nanotechnology will change the future of your business. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
  56. Woolgar, L. (2010). ERAWATCH research inventory report for JAPAN. European Commission: ERAWATCH. Accessed 15 Mar 2010.
  57. Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Porter, A. (2008). Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 981–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public AdministrationFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  3. 3.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations