Network analysis to evaluate the impact of research funding on research community consolidation

In 2004, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation launched a new program focused on incubating a new field, “Microbiology of the Built Environment” (MoBE). By the end of 2017, the program had supported the publication of hundreds of scholarly works, but it was unclear to what extent it had stimulated the development of a new research community. We identified 307 works funded by the MoBE program, as well as a comparison set of 698 authors who published in the same journals during the same period of time but were not part of the Sloan Foundation-funded collaboration. Our analysis of collaboration networks for both groups of authors suggests that the Sloan Foundation’s program resulted in a more consolidated community of researchers, specifically in terms of number of components, diameter, density, and transitivity of the coauthor networks. In addition to highlighting the success of this particular program, our method could be applied to other fields to examine the impact of funding programs and other large-scale initiatives on the formation of research communities.

[1]  Daniel J. Hicks,et al.  The National Robotics Initiative: A Five-Year Retrospective , 2019, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[2]  Anita M. M. Liu,et al.  The evolution of government sponsored collaboration network and its impact on innovation: A bibliometric analysis in the Chinese solar PV sector , 2018, Research Policy.

[3]  J. Gilbert,et al.  Microbiology of the built environment , 2018, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[4]  Borut Luzar,et al.  Is science driven by principal investigators? , 2018, Scientometrics.

[5]  Samuel F. Way,et al.  Network assembly of scientific communities of varying size and specificity , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[6]  Takao Terano,et al.  Evaluating funding programs through network centrality measures of co-author networks of technical papers , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data).

[7]  Justin P. Bruner,et al.  In Epistemic Networks, Is Less Really More? , 2017, Philosophy of Science.

[8]  Daniel J Hicks,et al.  Bibliometrics for Social Validation , 2016, PloS one.

[9]  Mehmet Ali Köseoglu Mapping the institutional collaboration network of strategic management research: 1980–2014 , 2016, Scientometrics.

[10]  L. Bromham,et al.  Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success , 2016, Nature.

[11]  Scott Chamberlain,et al.  Client for Various 'CrossRef' 'APIs' , 2016 .

[12]  Zehra Taskin,et al.  Collaborative interdisciplinary astrobiology research: a bibliometric study of the NASA Astrobiology Institute , 2015, Scientometrics.

[13]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[14]  James Britt Holbrook,et al.  What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration , 2012, Synthese.

[15]  Katy Börner,et al.  Mapping interactions within the evolving science of science and innovation policy community , 2011, Scientometrics.

[16]  Luís M. A. Bettencourt,et al.  Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[17]  Michael E. Gorman,et al.  Trading zones and interactional expertise , 2007 .

[18]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[19]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .