Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21926
Full metadata record
???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 黃慕萱 | |
dc.contributor.author | Mei-Jhen Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃玫溱 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T03:53:28Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-19 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-17 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 仇怡(民98)。改革開放以來中國研發投入的現狀及國際比較(1978-2003年)。中國經濟史研究,2009(1),62-70。
江俞庭(民106)。我國研發經費突破5千億續創新高。取自:https://tw.appledaily.com/finance/daily/20170316/37584806 科技部(民97)。義大利科學研究發展概況。取自:https://www.most.gov.tw/france/ch/detail?article_uid=3044b96f-7559-4e48-bbfd-321412d90566&menu_id=c5472577-1efa-4d84-aa70-4e78f2e2614f&content_type=P&view_mode=listView 科技部(民98)。國家科學研究中心(CNRS)。取自:https://www.most.gov.tw/france/ch/detail?article_uid=45229bbd-f618-4ce4-8449-10aa6c2fc3aa&menu_id=31acd9c9-c28a-4422-99b3-6e0da6803ac3&content_type=P&view_mode=listView 科技部(民106a)。105年科技部年報。取自:https://www.most.gov.tw/yearbook/105/index.html 科技部(民106b)。各國合作協議機構與作業須知。取自:https://www.most.gov.tw/sci/ch/list?menu_id=c1b07948-bf2d-4e15-a2f5-7ca125355570&view_mode=listView 科技部(民107)。維持科研經費穩定性 全方位培育科研人才。取自:https://www.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=7B4E1E9F56F5B601&sms=CE645272F8B775D3&s=C0ABA178176961DC 科技部(無日期)。補助專題研究計畫。取自:https://www.most.gov.tw/folksonomy/list?subSite=&l=ch&menu_id=a2cff226-5ab0-4c30-8aab-2c00cb9f53f0&view_mode=listView 國家自然科學基金委員會(民100)。國家自然科學基金面上項目管理辦法。取自:http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/publish/portal0/tab229/info24214.htm 國家自然科學基金委員會(民104a)。管理辦法。取自:http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/publish/portal0/tab229/ 國家自然科學基金委員會(民104b)。國家自然科學基金資助專案研究成果管理辦法。取自:http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/publish/portal0/tab229/info50311.htm 國家自然科學基金委員會(民106)。2018項目指南。取自:http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/xmzn/2018xmzn/index.html 張郁蔚、呂威寰(民103)。浮水印國際合著論文高產量國家之科學合作探討。圖書館學與資訊科學,40(2),7-22。 陳仕吉、史麗文、李冬梅、左文革(民101)。論文被引頻次標準化方法述評。現代圖書館情報技術,28(4),54-60。 黃慕萱(民83)。引用文獻初探。載於王振鵠教授七秩榮慶論文集編輯(主編),當代圖書館事業論集-慶祝王振鵠教授七秩榮慶論文集(807-816頁)。臺北市:正中書局。 黃慕萱(民96)。結果篇:擇優公布國內前20%大學名單。評鑑雙月刊,7,9-22。 維基百科(民105)。八大工業國組織。取自:http://zh.m.wikipedia.org 科学技術政策担当大臣(2010)。平成23年度科学・技術重要施策アクション・プラン。取自:http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/output/20100708ap.pdf Abt, H. A. (1984). Citations to federally-funded and unfunded research. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 96(581), 563-565. Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., & Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from U.S. universities, 1981-1999. Research Policy, 34, 259-285. Ajiferuke, I., Burell, Q., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14(5-6), 421-433. Altman, E., & Antieau, K. (1988). Dissemination and impact of U.S. Department of Education’s library research and demonstration projects: A citation analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 5, 45-56. Álvarez-Bornstein, B., Morillo, F., & Bordons, M. (2017). Funding acknowledgements in the Web of Science: Completeness and accuracy of collected data. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1793-1812. Amiri, A. R., Kanesalingam, K., Cro, S., & Casey, A. T. H. (2014). Does source of funding and conflict of interest influence the outcome and quality of spinal research? The Spine Journal, 14, 308-314. Avkiran, N. K. (1997). Scientific collaboration in finance does not lead to better quality research. Scientometrics, 39(2), 173-184. Baird, L. M., & Oppenheim, C. (1994). Do citations matter. Journal of Information Science, 20(1), 2-15. Beaver, D. deB. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365-377. Beaver, D. deB., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration, part I: The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65-84. Benavente, J. M., Crespi, G., Garone, L. F., & Maffioli, A. (2012). The impact of national research funds: A regression discontinuity approach to the Chilean FONDECYT. Research Policy, 41(8), 1461-1475. Benowitz, S. (1997). Early-career awards giving new researchers a leg up. The scientist, 11. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/18459/title/Early-Career-Awards-Giving-New-Researchers-A-Leg-Up/ Bloch, C., Sorensen, M. P., Graversen, E. K., Schneider, J. W., Schmidt, E. K., Aagaard, K., & Mejlgaard, N. (2014). Developing a methodology to assess the impact of research grant funding: A mixed methods approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 43, 105-117. Bolli, T., & Somogyi, F. (2011). Do competitively acquired funds induce universities to increase productivity? Research Policy, 40(1), 136-147. Borgman, C., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 2-72. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Use of citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 93-102. Boyack, K. W., & Börner, K. (2003). Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: Visualizing the influence of grants on the number and quality of research papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 447-461. Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy, 27, 807-821. Broadhead, R. S., & Rist, R. C. (1976). Gatekeepers and the social control of social research. Social Problems, 23(3), 325-336. Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 12(5-6), 373-379. Brooks, T. A. (1986). Evidence of complex citer motivations. American Society for Information Science, 37(1), 34-36. Casassus, B. (2017). French government proposes big science-spending boost. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/news/french-government-proposes-big-science-spending-boost-1.22733 Chudnovsky, D., López, A., Rossi, M. A., & Ubfal, D. (2008). Money for Science? The impact of research grants on academic output. Fiscal Studies, 29(1), 75-87. Cordero, C., Delino, R., Jeyaseelan, L., Lansang, M. A., Lozano, J. M., Kumar, S., Moreno, S., Pietersen, M., Quirino, J., Thamlikitkul, V., Welch, V. A., Tetroe, J., Ter Kuile, A., Graham, I. D., Grimshaw, J., Neufeld, V., Wells, G., & Tugwell, P. (2008). Funding agencies in low- and middle-income countries: Support for knowledge translation. Bull World Health Organ, 86(7), 524-34. Costas, R., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2012). Approaching the ‘reward triangle’: General analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and ‘peer interactive communication’ in scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1647-1661. Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (1999). Citation, funding acknowledgement and author nationality relationships in four information science journals. Journal of Documentation, 55(4), 402-408. Crow, G., Levine, L., & Nager, N. (1992). Are three heads better than one? Reflections on doing collaborative interdisciplinary research. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 737-753. Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38, 293-305. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2015). Quo vadis, proposal? Retrieved from http://www.dfg.de/en/research_funding/principles_dfg_funding/quo_vadis_proposal/index.html#anker49347031 Diodato, V. (1994). Dictionary of bibliometrics. New York: Haworth Press. European Commission (2018). European Commission proposes 30 billion Euro budget increase for research, innovation and higher education. Retrieved from https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/worldwide/japan/european-commission-proposes-30-billion-euro-budget-increase-research Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2016). Facts & figures. Retrieved from https://www.research-in-germany.org/en/research-landscape/facts-and-figures.html Frame, J. D., & Narin, F. (1976). NIH funding and biomedical publication output. Federation Proceedings, 35, 2529-2532. Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 540-553. Fuyuno, I. (2018). Japanese researchers say science-budget hike isn't enough. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01599-w Garfield, E. (1996). When to cite. Library Quarterly, 66(4), 449-458. Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87(2), 251-265. Gemelli, G., & Brusa, M. A. (2015). Italy country report: EUFORI report. Retrieved from http://euforistudy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Italy.pdf German Academic Exchange Service. (2016). Funding your research in Germany: Grants, fellowships and awards for international PhD students and researchers. Retrieved from https://www.research-in-germany.org/dms/downloads-en/rig-publications/RiG-Funding-your-research-in-Germany-2016/Funding%20your%20research%202016%20barrierefrei.pdf Glänzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a research field. Retrieved from http://nsdl.niscair.res.in/jspui/bitstream/123456789/968/1/Bib_Module_KUL.pdf Goldfarb, B. (2008). The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy, 37, 41-58. Grimpe, C. (2012). Extramural research grants and scientists' funding strategies: Beggars cannot be choosers? Research Policy, 41, 1448-1460. 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. Haustein, S., Tunger, D., Heinrichs, G., & Baelz, G. (2011). Reasons for and developments in international scientific collaboration: Does an Asia-Pacific research area exist from a bibliometric point of view? Scientometrics, 86, 727-746. Heffner, A. G. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3(1), 5-12. Heinze, T. (2008). How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes. Science and Public Policy, 35(5), 302-318. Hornbostel, S., Böhmer, S., Koingsporn, B., Neufeld, J., & von Ins, M. (2009). Funding of young scientist and scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 79(1), 171-190. Hourihan, M., & Parkes, D. (2016). Federal R&D in the FY 2016 budget: An overview. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/fy16budget/federal-rd-fy-2016-budget-overview Hsu, H. C., & Tuan, W. H. (2016). Taiwan Government’s scientific journal supporting policy. Science Editing, 3(2), 105-108. Ida, T., & Fukuzawa, N. (2013). Effects of large-scale research funding programs: A Japanese case study. Scientometrics 94(3), 1253-1273. Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9/10), 1168-1177. Jain, A., Garg, K. C., Sharma, P., & Kumar, S. (1998). Impact of SERC’s funding on research in chemical sciences. Scientometrics, 41(3), 357-370. Jowkar, A., Didegah, F. & Gazni, A. (2011). The effect of funding on academic research impact: A case study of Iranian publications. Aslib Proceedings, 63(6), 593-602. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13, 261-276. Kondro, W. (2017). Research stays frozen in Canadian budget. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/research-stays-frozen-canadian-budget Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity, and impact: An analysis of Quebec University professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483-498. Lewison, G., & Dawson, G. (1998). The effect of funding on the outputs of biomedical research. Scientometrics, 41(1‐2), 17‐27. Leydesdorff, L. (2003). The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics. Scientometrics, 58(2), 445-467. Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science measuring what’s measurable rather than what’s valid. Scientometrics, 15(3-4), 189-203. Logan, E. L., & Shaw, W. M. Jr. (1991). A bibliometric analysis of collaboration in a medical specialty. Scientometrics, 20(3), 417-426. Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145-154. Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J. W., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15-36. Mcallister, P. R., Narin, F., & Corrigan, J. G. (1983). Programmatic evaluation and comparison based on standardized citation scores. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 30(4), 205-211. McCain, K. W., & Turner, K. (1989). Citation context analysis and aging patterns of journal articles in molecular genetics. Scientometrics, 17(1-2), 127-163. McLaughlin, K. (2016). Science is a major plank in China’s new spending plan. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/science-major-plank-china-s-new-spending-plan Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363-377. Ministry of Education, University and Research. (2015). National program for research 2015-2020. Retrieved from http://hubmiur.pubblica.istruzione.it/web/ricerca/pnr Ministry of Education, University and Research. (2017). Call for Prin 2017. Retrieved from http://www.miur.gov.it/web/guest/-/bando-prin-2017 Moed, H. F., de Bruin, R. E., & van Leeuwen, Th. N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33, 381-422. Movchan, A. (2016). What can we learn from Russia’s 2016 budget proposal? Retrieved from http://carnegie.ru/commentary/62015 Narin, F., Olivastro, D., & Stevens, K. A. (1994). Bibliometrics? Theory, practice, and problems. Evaluation Review, 18, 65-76. National Institutes of Health. (2017). NIH grants policy statement. Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/policy/nihgps/index.htm Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. (2017). Council. Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Council-Conseil/index_eng.asp Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H. D. (2009). A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts, Scientometrics, 78(2), 219-229. OECD (2013). Science and technology: Research and development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/std/08_Science_and_technology.pdf OECD (2016). Gross domestic spending on R&D. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm. Opthof, T. (2011). Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research. Medical and Biological Engineering & Computing, 49(6), 613-621. Pao, M. L. (1991). On the relationship of funding and research publications. Scientometrics, 20(1), 257-281. Patterson, M. S., & Harris, S. (2009). The relationship between reviewers’ quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003-2005. Scientometrics, 80(2), 343-349. Payne, A. A., & Siow, A. (2003). Does federal research funding increase university research output? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1), 1-22. Peritz, B. C. (1990). The citation impact of funded and unfunded research in economics. Scientometrics, 19(3), 199-206. Rabesandratana, T. (2014). French research funding system is too 'rigid,' OECD says. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/french-research-funding-system-too-rigid-oecd-says Reid, G. (2016). Here's why science should take a seat at the Brexit negotiation table. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/jul/12/heres-why-science-should-take-a-seat-at-the-brexit-negotiation-table Rigby, J. & Julian, K (2014). On the horns of a dilemma: Does more funding for research lead to more research or a waste of resources that calls for optimization of researcher portfolios? An analysis using funding acknowledgement data. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1067-1075. Rigby, J. (2009). Comparing the scientific quality achieved by funding instruments for single grant holders and for collaborative networks within a research system: Some observations. Scientometrics, 78(1), 145-164. Rigby, J. (2011). Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for publications: New dimensions and new controversies for research policy and evaluation. Research Evaluation, 20(5), 35-375. Rigby, J. (2013). Looking for the impact of peer review: Does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact? Scientometrics, 94(1), 57-73. Russian Fundation for Basic Research. (2017). General information about RFBR. Retrieved from http://www.rfbr.ru/rffi/eng/info_eng Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509-532. Sandström U. (2009). Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics, 79(2), 341-349. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5-6), 281-291. Scott, A & Smith, T. (2014). National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/14pch06.pdf Sharma, O. P. (2012). Quality indicators of scientific research. Indian Journal of Microbiology, 52(2), 305-306. Shelton, R. D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Publish or patent: Bibliometric evidence for empirical trade-offs in national funding strategies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 498-511. Shibayama, S. (2011). Distribution of academic research funds: Case of Japanese national research grant. Scientometrics, 88(1), 43-60. Steen, J. (2012). Modes of public funding of research and development: Towards internationally comparable indicators. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k98ssns1gzs-en. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33-38. Tan, A. M., Zhao, S. X., & Ye, F. Y. (2012a). Characterizing the funded scientific collaboration network. Current Science, 103(11), 1261-1262. Tan, A. M., Zhao, S. X., & Ye, F. Y. (2012b). Funds promote scientific output. Current Science, 102(4), 542-543. Tang, L., Hu, G., & Liu, W. (2017). Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 790-794. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. (2018). Standard research. Retrieved from https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/applicationprocess/routes/standardresearch/ The National Center for Scientific Research. (2016). International policy. Retrieved from http://www.cnrs.fr/en/workingwith/international-policy.htm The National Center for Scientific Research. (2017). About CNRS. Retrieved from http://www.cnrs.fr/en/aboutcnrs/overview.htm The Royal Society. (2015). UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/uk-research-and-european-union/role-of-EU-in-funding-UK-research/how-much-funding-does-uk-get-in-comparison-with-other-countries/ The Royal Society. (2018). International Collaboration Awards. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/grants/international-collaborations/ Toral, S. L., Bessis, N., & Martínez-Torres, M. R. (2012). External collaboration patterns of research institutions using shared publications in the web of science. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 47(2), 170-187. Ubfal, D., & Maffioli, A. (2011). The impact of funding on research collaboration: Evidence from a developing country. Research Policy, 40, 1269-1279. Vlassov, V. V. (2017). Russian medicine: Trying to catch up on scientific evidence and human values. Lancet, 390, 1619-1620. Van Noorden, R. (2016). China by the numbers. Nature, 534, 452-453. Wade, N. (1975). Citation analysis: A new tool for science administrators, Science, 188(4187), 429-432. Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science, Scientometrics, 62(1), 3-26. Wagner-Doebler, R. (2001). Continuity and discontinuity of collaboration behaviour since, 1800: From a bibliometric point of view. Scientometrics, 52, 503-517. Walentas, C. D., Shineman, D. W., Horton, A. R., Boeve, B. F., & Fillit, H. M. (2011). An analysis of global research funding for the frontotemporal dementias: 1998-2008. Alzheimers Dement, 7(2),142-150. Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2011). Funding acknowledgement analysis: An enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: The case of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 87(3), 563-586. Wang, X. W., Liu, D., Ding, K., & Wang, X. R. (2012). Science funding and research output: A study on 10 countries. Scientometrics, 91(2), 591-599. Wellcome. (2018). Funding. Retrieved from https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding Xu, X., Tan, A. M., & Zhao, S. X. (2015). Funding ratios in social science: The perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences. Scientometrics, 104(3), 673-684. Yamashita, Y., & Okubo, Y. (2006). Patterns of scientific collaboration between Japan and France: Inter-sectoral analysis using Probabilistic Partnership Index (PPI). Scientometrics, 68(2), 303-324. Yang, W. (2015). National Natural Science Foundation of China annual report 2014. Retrieved from http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/ndbg/2014ndbg/qy.html Zhao, D. (2010). Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: A case study of the library and information science field. Scientometrics, 84(2), 293-306. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21926 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究分析美國、英國、法國、德國、日本、義大利、加拿大、俄羅斯等八大工業國,及臺灣與中國之研究補助狀況及研究影響力,從Web of Science資料庫蒐集十國2009至2014年出版之農業、臨床醫學、工程、生命科學及自然科學領域論文,獲研究補助論文共3,083,105篇,未獲研究補助論文共1,526,415篇。
研究結果顯示,各國皆有超過半數論文獲得研究補助,研究補助率呈現成長趨勢,尤其法國、德國及英國成長幅度較大。研究補助論文數最高為美國及中國,兩國亦為研究補助出超大國,其中美國國家科學基金會和中國國家自然科學基金委員會是主要跨國多補助機構。此外,美國與許多國家合作研究關係密切,臺灣跨國合著強度最高國家也是美國。各領域研究補助率則以生命科學領域最高,臨床醫學領域最低。 在研究影響力方面,各國及各領域之獲研究補助論文,其研究影響力均高於未獲研究補助論文,且合著與研究影響力有關,獲研究補助跨國合著論文影響力高於獲研究補助國內合著論文,各研究補助機構類型則以企業補助研究影響力較佳。此外,比較各國研究補助率及研究補助影響力,英國研究補助率偏低,但研究影響力高;中國與臺灣則是研究補助率高,但研究影響力低,研究成果還待提升。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This study analyzed the journal articles from the G8 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), Taiwan and China to identify the distribution of research funding, funding agencies and research impact. The research data was collected from Web of Science database and the subject fields were limited to agriculture, clinical medicine, engineering, life sciences, and natural sciences. 3,083,105 funded articles and 1,526,415 unfunded articles published between 2009 and 2014 were used.
The results showed that over half of all research articles in all countries received research funding, and the funded paper ratios increased each year. The United States and China had the highest number of funded papers, and both countries had a sponsorship surplus with other countries. In addition, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) were the major multifunding agencies. Furthermore, life sciences had the highest proportion of funded papers among the field’s total paper output, while clinical medicine had the lowest funded paper ratio. Regarding the research impact, the average number of citations per funded paper was almost two times the number of unfunded paper, with statistically significant difference observed. The average number of citations for international collaborative funded papers was more than for internal collaborative ones. Among five types of funding agencies, industry-funded papers were cited most often. In addition, China and Taiwan had high funding ratios, while receiving low average citation counts per funded paper, in contrast to the United Kingdom. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:53:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-D99126005-1.pdf: 1114938 bytes, checksum: e565b414ed2edf8c8f453d5200df8d09 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 i
中文摘要 iii 英文摘要 iv 目錄 v 圖目錄 vii 表目錄 ix 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 問題陳述 1 第二節 研究目的與研究問題 5 第三節 研究範圍與限制 6 第四節 名詞定義 7 第二章 文獻探討 9 第一節 研究補助 9 第二節 研究補助與研究影響力 21 第三節 研究補助與合作研究 26 第三章 研究設計與實施 33 第一節 研究方法與研究設計 33 第二節 研究對象 37 第三節 研究步驟 39 第四節 資料處理 41 第四章 研究補助狀況及研究影響力分析 45 第一節 研究補助領域、機構及合作研究狀況 45 第二節 研究補助影響力分析 65 第三節 國內及跨國多補助狀況及其研究影響力分析 83 第五章 結論與建議 101 第一節 結論 101 第二節 建議 109 第三節 研究貢獻 110 第四節 進一步研究建議 112 參考文獻 115 附錄 131 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 八大工業國及臺灣與中國研究補助狀況及研究影響力探討 | zh_TW |
dc.title | An Analysis of Research Funding and Research Impact in G8 Countries, Taiwan and China | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林奇秀,唐牧群,吳明德,陳達仁 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 研究補助,研究補助機構,研究影響力,書目計量分析,八大工業國, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Research Funding,Funding Agency,Research Impact,Bibliometric Analysis,G8, | en |
dc.relation.page | 138 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201803881 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-17 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學研究所 | zh_TW |
Appears in Collections: | 圖書資訊學系 |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf Restricted Access | 1.09 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.