IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v21y2012i2p89-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing research network and disciplinary engagement changes induced by an NSF program

Author

Listed:
  • Jon G. Garner
  • Alan L. Porter
  • Nils C. Newman
  • Todd A. Crowl

Abstract

To assess the success of the National Science Foundation's Research Coordination Network (RCN) program, a set of publication measures and visualization tools were used to determine how effective the program is in enhancing interdisciplinary publication and information sharing. The publication patterns of a set of researchers were compared before and after receiving RCN awards. These analyses show significant increases in basic collaboration measures--authors per paper and institutions per paper--following RCN support. Various indications suggest increased linkage among the RCN researchers in terms of extent of co-authoring and of cross-citing each other's work. RCN support appears to foster more interdisciplinary research. Diffusion scores (a new metric) showed that the diversity of articles citing RCN-related articles was similar to those citing control group research. Finally, the articles generated by the project activities showed as especially influential; they appear in high impact journals and are more highly cited. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jon G. Garner & Alan L. Porter & Nils C. Newman & Todd A. Crowl, 2012. "Assessing research network and disciplinary engagement changes induced by an NSF program," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 89-104, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:2:p:89-104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvs004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Fernanda Morillo & Rodrigo Costas & María Bordons, 2015. "How is credit given to networking centres in their publications? A case study of the Spanish CIBER research structures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 923-938, June.
    2. Fernanda Morillo & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & Borja González-Albo & Luz Moreno, 2014. "Do networking centres perform better? An exploratory analysis in Psychiatry and Gastroenterology/Hepatology in Spain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1401-1416, February.
    3. Oscar Llopis & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Julia Olmos-Peñuela & Elena Castro-Martínez, 2018. "Scientists’ engagement in knowledge transfer and exchange: Individual factors, variety of mechanisms and users," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 790-803.
    4. Elizabeth M Ginexi & Grace Huang & Michael Steketee & Sophia Tsakraklides & Keith MacAllum & Julie Bromberg & Amanda Huffman & Douglas A Luke & Scott J Leischow & Janet M Okamoto & Todd Rogers, 2017. "Social network analysis of a scientist–practitioner research initiative established to facilitate science dissemination and implementation within states and communities," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 316-325.
    5. Gibson, Elizabeth & Daim, Tugrul U. & Dabic, Marina, 2019. "Evaluating university industry collaborative research centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 181-202.
    6. Hird, Mackenzie D. & Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., 2017. "How complex international partnerships shape domestic research clusters: Difference-in-difference network formation and research re-orientation in the MIT Portugal Program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 557-572.

    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:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:2:p:89-104. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.