IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v25y1996i5p805-818.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of national R&D projects in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Mushin
  • Son, Byoungho
  • Om, Kiyong

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Mushin & Son, Byoungho & Om, Kiyong, 1996. "Evaluation of national R&D projects in Korea," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 805-818, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:25:y:1996:i:5:p:805-818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048-7333(96)00879-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ormala, Erkki, 1989. "Nordic experiences of the evaluation of technical research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 333-342, December.
    2. Narin, Francis & Rozek, Richard P., 1988. "Bibliometric analysis of U.S. pharmaceutical industry research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 139-154, June.
    3. Averch, Harvey A., 1989. "Exploring the cost-efficiency of basic research funding in chemistry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 165-172, June.
    4. Luukkonen, Terttu & Stahle, Bertel, 1990. "Quality evaluations in the management of basic and applied research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 357-368, August.
    5. Kim, Linsu & Dahlman, Carl J., 1992. "Technology policy for industrialization: An integrative framework and Korea's experience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 437-452, October.
    6. Tanaka, Masami, 1989. "Japanese-style evaluation systems for R&D projects: The MITI experience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 361-378, December.
    7. Francis Narin & Dominic Olivastro & Kimberly A. Stevens, 1994. "Bibliometrics/Theory, Practice and Problems," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(1), pages 65-76, February.
    8. Roessner, J. David, 1989. "Evaluating government innovation programs: Lessons from the U.S. experience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 343-359, December.
    9. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Montigny, Philippe, 1989. "Evaluations of innovation programmes in selected European countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 313-332, December.
    10. McKeon, R. & Ryan, J. A., 1989. "Evaluation of programs promoting technological innovation--The Australian experience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 379-388, December.
    11. Harvey A. Averch, 1994. "Economic Approaches To the Evaluation of Research," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(1), pages 77-88, February.
    12. Lootsma, F. A. & Mensch, T. C. A. & Vos, F. A., 1990. "Multi-criteria analysis and budget reallocation in long-term research planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 293-305, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Noh, Heeyong & Seo, Ju-Hwan & Sun Yoo, Hyoung & Lee, Sungjoo, 2018. "How to improve a technology evaluation model: A data-driven approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 72, pages 1-12.
    2. M. Lee & K. Om & J. Koh, 1999. "Blind review of research proposals in Korea: Its effectiveness and factors affecting applicant detection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(1), pages 17-31, May.
    3. Kiwon Lee & Suchul Lee, 2023. "Enhancing R&D Performance Management: A Case of R&D Projects in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Mushin Lee & Kiyong Om & Joon Koh, 2000. "The Bias of Sighted Reviewers in Research Proposal Evaluation: A Comparative Analysis of Blind and Open Review in Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 48(1), pages 99-116, June.
    5. Sakakibara, Mariko & Cho, Dong-Sung, 2002. "Cooperative R&D in Japan and Korea: a comparison of industrial policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 673-692, July.
    6. Bae, Sung Joo & Lee, Hyeonsuh, 2020. "The role of government in fostering collaborative R&D projects: Empirical evidence from South Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. Takahiro NISHI, 2015. "Corporate diversification and board composition in Japanese electronics corporations," International Journal of Business and Management, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 27-44, May.
    8. Leonardo Sastoque Pinilla & Raúl Llorente Rodríguez & Nerea Toledo Gandarias & Luis Norberto López de Lacalle & Mahboobeh Ramezani Farokhad, 2019. "TRLs 5–7 Advanced Manufacturing Centres, Practical Model to Boost Technology Transfer in Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-14, September.
    9. Lee, Hakyeon & Park, Yongtae & Choi, Hoogon, 2009. "Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 847-855, August.
    10. Sharon Poczter, 2017. "Rethinking the government as innovator: Evidence from Asian firms," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 367-397, June.
    11. Sara Amoroso & Simone Vannuccini, 2019. "Teaming up with Large R&D Investors: Good or Bad for Knowledge Production and Diffusion?," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-20, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    12. Kyoungmi Lee & Sunglok Choi & Jae-Suk Yang, 2021. "Can expensive research equipment boost research and development performances?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7715-7742, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mónica Espinosa-Blasco & Gabriel I. Penagos-Londoño & Felipe Ruiz-Moreno & María J. Vilaplana-Aparicio, 2024. "New Insights on the Allocation of Innovation Subsidies: A Machine Learning Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 2704-2725, March.
    2. Leonardo Sastoque Pinilla & Raúl Llorente Rodríguez & Nerea Toledo Gandarias & Luis Norberto López de Lacalle & Mahboobeh Ramezani Farokhad, 2019. "TRLs 5–7 Advanced Manufacturing Centres, Practical Model to Boost Technology Transfer in Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Kostoff, Ronald N., 1995. "Research requirements for research impact assessment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 869-882, November.
    4. Smith, K. & Marinova, D., 2005. "Use of bibliometric modelling for policy making," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 177-187.
    5. D'Este, Pablo, 2005. "How do firms' knowledge bases affect intra-industry heterogeneity?: An analysis of the Spanish pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 33-45, February.
    6. Dutrénit, Gabriela & Natera, José Miguel & Puchet Anyul, Martín & Vera-Cruz, Alexandre O., 2019. "Development profiles and accumulation of technological capabilities in Latin America," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 396-412.
    7. Tarighi, Sina & Shavvalpour, Saeed, 2021. "Technological development of E&P companies in developing countries: An integrative approach to define and prioritize customized elements of technological capability in EOR," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    8. Mohan Babu, G.N., 1999. "The Determinants of Firm-level Technological Performances - A Study on the Indian Capital Goods Sector," UNU-INTECH Discussion Paper Series 1999-01, United Nations University - INTECH.
    9. Stefano Brusoni & Paola Criscuolo & Aldo Geuna, 2005. "The knowledge bases of the world's largest pharmaceutical groups: what do patent citations to non-patent literature reveal?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 395-415.
    10. Chen, Cheng-Fen & Sewell, Graham, 1996. "Strategies for technological development in South Korea and Taiwan: the case of semiconductors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 759-783, August.
    11. Boyack, Kevin W. & Patek, Michael & Ungar, Lyle H. & Yoon, Patrick & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Classification of individual articles from all of science by research level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12.
    12. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    13. ZHU Chen & MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki, 2022. "Government R&D spending as a driving force of technology convergence," Discussion papers 22030, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    14. Matthew A. Shapiro & Han Woo Park, 2012. "Regional development in South Korea: accounting for research area in centrality and networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(1), pages 271-287, January.
    15. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
    16. Pauline Debanes, 2018. "Layering the developmental state away?," Working Papers halshs-01800489, HAL.
    17. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    18. Teixeira, Aurora A.C. & Fortuna, Natércia, 2010. "Human capital, R&D, trade, and long-run productivity. Testing the technological absorption hypothesis for the Portuguese economy, 1960-2001," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 335-350, April.
    19. Xianwen Wang & Xi Zhang & Shenmeng Xu, 2011. "Patent co-citation networks of Fortune 500 companies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 761-770, September.
    20. Lipovetsky, S. & Lootsma, F. A., 2000. "Generalized golden sections, repeated bisections and aesthetic pleasure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 213-216, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:25:y:1996:i:5:p:805-818. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.