This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Aagaard K., Kladakis A., & Nielsen M. W. (2020). Concentration or dispersal of research funding? Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1): 117–149., from https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00002.AagaardK.KladakisA.NielsenM. W. (2020). Concentration or dispersal of research funding?Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1): 117–149., from https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00002.Search in Google Scholar
Abramo G., Cicero T., & D’Angelo C. A. (2013). Individual research performance: A proposal for comparing apples to oranges. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 528–539, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.013.AbramoG.CiceroT.D’AngeloC. A. (2013). Individual research performance: A proposal for comparing apples to oranges. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 528–539, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.013.Search in Google Scholar
Auranen O., & Nieminen M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.003.AuranenO.NieminenM. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.003.Search in Google Scholar
Azoulay P., & Li D. (2020). Scientific grant funding. In Innovation and Public Policy. University of Chicago Press.AzoulayP.LiD. (2020). Scientific grant funding. In Innovation and Public Policy.University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Batista P. D., Campiteli M. G., & Kinouchi O. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68(1), 179–189, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4.BatistaP. D.CampiteliM. G.KinouchiO. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?Scientometrics, 68(1), 179–189, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4.Search in Google Scholar
Batygin G. S. (2001) The invisible border: Grant support and restructuring the scientific community in Russia. Intellectual News, 9(1), 70–74, from https://doi.org/10.1080/15615324.2001.10426712BatyginG. S.(2001) The invisible border: Grant support and restructuring the scientific community in Russia. Intellectual News, 9(1), 70–74, from https://doi.org/10.1080/15615324.2001.10426712Search in Google Scholar
Beckert J. (2019). Shall I publish this auf Deutsch or in English? Sociologica, 13(1), 3–7, from https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/9378.BeckertJ. (2019). Shall I publish this auf Deutsch or in English?Sociologica, 13(1), 3–7, from https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/9378.Search in Google Scholar
Bertoni M., Brunello G., Checchi D., & Rocco L. (2021). Where do I stand? Assessing researchers’ beliefs about their productivity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 185, 61–80, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.02.025.BertoniM.BrunelloG.ChecchiD.RoccoL. (2021). Where do I stand? Assessing researchers’ beliefs about their productivity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 185, 61–80, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.02.025.Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann L. (2011). Peer review and bibliometric: potentials and problems. In: Shin, J., Toutkoushian R., Teichler U. (eds) University Rankings. The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht, 145-164, from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_8BornmannL. (2011). Peer review and bibliometric: potentials and problems. In: ShinJ.ToutkoushianR.TeichlerU. (eds) University Rankings. The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht, 145-164, from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_8Search in Google Scholar
Campbell D., Picard-Aitken M., Côté G., Caruso J., Valentim R., Edmonds S., (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, from https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214009354774.CampbellD.Picard-AitkenM.CôtéG.CarusoJ.ValentimR.EdmondsS., (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, from https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214009354774.Search in Google Scholar
Chankseliani M., Lovakov A., & Pislyakov V. (2021). A big picture: bibliometric study of academic publications from post-Soviet countries. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8701-8730, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-021-04124-5ChankselianiM.LovakovA.PislyakovV. (2021). A big picture: bibliometric study of academic publications from post-Soviet countries. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8701-8730, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-021-04124-5Search in Google Scholar
Clark B. Y., & Llorens J. J. (2012). Investments in Scientific Research: Examining the funding threshold effects on scientific collaboration and variation by academic discipline. Policy Studies Journal, 40(4), 698–729, from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00470.xClarkB. Y.LlorensJ. J. (2012). Investments in Scientific Research: Examining the funding threshold effects on scientific collaboration and variation by academic discipline. Policy Studies Journal, 40(4), 698–729, from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00470.xSearch in Google Scholar
Denisova-Schmidt E. V. (2023). Academic dishonesty at Russian universities: A historical overview. Universe of Russia, 32(1), 159-181, from https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038X-2023-32-1-159-181Denisova-SchmidtE. V. (2023). Academic dishonesty at Russian universities: A historical overview. Universe of Russia, 32(1), 159-181, from https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038X-2023-32-1-159-181Search in Google Scholar
Donovan C., & Butler L. (2007). Testing novel quantitative indicators of research ‘quality’, esteem and ‘user engagement’: An economics pilot study. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 231–242, from https://doi.org/10.3152/095820207X257030DonovanC.ButlerL. (2007). Testing novel quantitative indicators of research ‘quality’, esteem and ‘user engagement’: An economics pilot study. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 231–242, from https://doi.org/10.3152/095820207X257030Search in Google Scholar
Fang F. C., Bowen A., & Casadevall A. (2016). NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. eLife, 5, e13323, from https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13323FangF. C.BowenA.CasadevallA. (2016). NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. eLife, 5, e13323, from https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13323Search in Google Scholar
Fedderke J. W., & Goldschmidt M. (2015). Does massive funding support of researchers work?: Evaluating the impact of the South African research chair funding initiative. Research Policy, 44(2), 467–482, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.009FedderkeJ. W.GoldschmidtM. (2015). Does massive funding support of researchers work?: Evaluating the impact of the South African research chair funding initiative. Research Policy, 44(2), 467–482, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.009Search in Google Scholar
Gantman E. R., & Fernández Rodríguez, C. J. (2016). Literature segmentation in management and organization studies: The case of Spanish-speaking countries (2000–10). Research Evaluation, 25(4), 461–471, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv031GantmanE. R.Fernández RodríguezC. J. (2016). Literature segmentation in management and organization studies: The case of Spanish-speaking countries (2000–10). Research Evaluation, 25(4), 461–471, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv031Search in Google Scholar
Gläser J. (2004). Why are the most influential books in Australian sociology not necessarily the most highly cited ones? Journal of Sociology, 40(3), 261–282, from https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783304046370GläserJ. (2004). Why are the most influential books in Australian sociology not necessarily the most highly cited ones?Journal of Sociology, 40(3), 261–282, from https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783304046370Search in Google Scholar
Gök A., Rigby J., & Shapira P. (2016). The impact of research funding on scientific outputs: Evidence from six smaller European countries. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 715–730, from https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23406GökA.RigbyJ.ShapiraP. (2016). The impact of research funding on scientific outputs: Evidence from six smaller European countries. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 715–730, from https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23406Search in Google Scholar
Graves N., Barnett A. G., & Clarke P. (2011). Funding grant proposals for scientific research: Retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ, 343, d4797, from https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4797GravesN.BarnettA. G.ClarkeP. (2011). Funding grant proposals for scientific research: Retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ, 343, d4797, from https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4797Search in Google Scholar
Grimpe C. (2012). Extramural research grants and scientists’ funding strategies: Beggars cannot be choosers? Research Policy, 41(8), 1448–1460, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.004.GrimpeC. (2012). Extramural research grants and scientists’ funding strategies: Beggars cannot be choosers?Research Policy, 41(8), 1448–1460, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.004.Search in Google Scholar
Gush J., Jaffe A., Larsen V., & Laws A. (2018). The effect of public funding on research output: The New Zealand Marsden Fund. New Zealand Economic Papers, 52(2), 227–248, from https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2017.1325921.GushJ.JaffeA.LarsenV.LawsA. (2018). The effect of public funding on research output: The New Zealand Marsden Fund. New Zealand Economic Papers, 52(2), 227–248, from https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2017.1325921.Search in Google Scholar
Guskov A. E., Kosyakov D. V., & Selivanova I. V. (2018). Boosting research productivity in top Russian universities: The circumstances of breakthrough. Scientometrics, 117(2), 1053–1080, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2890-8.GuskovA. E.KosyakovD. V.SelivanovaI. V. (2018). Boosting research productivity in top Russian universities: The circumstances of breakthrough. Scientometrics, 117(2), 1053–1080, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2890-8.Search in Google Scholar
Guthrie S., Ghiga I., & Wooding S. (2018). What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? F1000Research, 6(1335), from https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11917.2GuthrieS.GhigaI.WoodingS. (2018). What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?F1000Research, 6(1335), from https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11917.2Search in Google Scholar
Győrffy B., Herman P., & Szabó I. (2020). Research funding: Past performance is a stronger predictor of future scientific output than reviewer scores. Journal of Informetrics, 14(3), 101050, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101050.GyőrffyB.HermanP.SzabóI. (2020). Research funding: Past performance is a stronger predictor of future scientific output than reviewer scores. Journal of Informetrics, 14(3), 101050, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101050.Search in Google Scholar
Győrffy B., Nagy A. M., Herman P., & Török, Á. (2018). Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: An evaluation of the first 117 research groups. Scientometrics, 117(1), 409–426, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2852-1.GyőrffyB.NagyA. M.HermanP.TörökÁ.(2018). Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: An evaluation of the first 117 research groups. Scientometrics, 117(1), 409–426, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2852-1.Search in Google Scholar
Hammarfelt B., & Rijcke S. de (2015). Accountability in context: Effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 63–77, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu029.HammarfeltB.RijckeS. de(2015). Accountability in context: Effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 63–77, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu029.Search in Google Scholar
Hicks D., Tomizawa H., Saitoh Y., & Kobayashi S. (2004). Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States. Research Evaluation, 13(2), 76–86, from https://doi.org/10.3152/147154404781776446.HicksD.TomizawaH.SaitohY.KobayashiS. (2004). Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States. Research Evaluation, 13(2), 76–86, from https://doi.org/10.3152/147154404781776446.Search in Google Scholar
Hornbostel S., Böhmer S., Klingsporn B., Neufeld J., & Ins M. von (2009). Funding of young scientist and scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 79(1), 171–190, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0411-5.HornbostelS.BöhmerS.KlingspornB.NeufeldJ.InsM. von (2009). Funding of young scientist and scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 79(1), 171–190, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0411-5.Search in Google Scholar
Jacob B. A., & Lefgren L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9), 1168–1177, from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118807514JacobB. A.LefgrenL. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9), 1168–1177, from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118807514Search in Google Scholar
Južnič P., Pečlin S., Žaucer M., Mandelj T., Pušnik M., & Demšar F. (2010). Scientometric indicators: peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests. Scientometrics, 85(2), 429-441, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0230-8JužničP.PečlinS.ŽaucerM.MandeljT.PušnikM.DemšarF. (2010). Scientometric indicators: peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests. Scientometrics, 85(2), 429-441, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0230-8Search in Google Scholar
Koch T., & Vanderstraeten R. (2019). Internationalizing a national scientific community? Changes in publication and citation practices in Chile, 1976–2015. Current Sociology, 67(5), 723–741, from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118807514.KochT.VanderstraetenR. (2019). Internationalizing a national scientific community? Changes in publication and citation practices in Chile, 1976–2015. Current Sociology, 67(5), 723–741, from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118807514.Search in Google Scholar
Langfeldt L., Benner M., Sivertsen G., Kristiansen E. H., Aksnes D. W., Borlaug S. B., (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 661–675, from https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu083LangfeldtL.BennerM.SivertsenG.KristiansenE. H.AksnesD. W.BorlaugS. B. (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 661–675, from https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu083Search in Google Scholar
Langfeldt L., Reymert I., & Aksnes D. W. (2021). The role of metrics in peer assessments. Research Evaluation, 30(1), 112–126, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa032.LangfeldtL.ReymertI.AksnesD. W. (2021). The role of metrics in peer assessments. Research Evaluation, 30(1), 112–126, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa032.Search in Google Scholar
Larivière V., & Sugimoto C. R. (2019). The Journal Impact Factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer Handbooks. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Cham: Springer International Publishing, from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1LarivièreV.SugimotoC. R. (2019). The Journal Impact Factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. In GlänzelW.MoedH. F.SchmochU.ThelwallM. (Eds.), Springer Handbooks. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators.ChamSpringer International Publishing, from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1Search in Google Scholar
Laudel G. (2006). The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Scienca and Public Policy (Science and Public Policy), 33(7), 489–504, from https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778777LaudelG. (2006). The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Scienca and Public Policy (Science and Public Policy), 33(7), 489–504, from https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778777Search in Google Scholar
Li D., & Agha L. (2015). Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science, 348(6233), 434–438, from https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0185LiD.AghaL. (2015). Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?Science, 348(6233), 434–438, from https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0185Search in Google Scholar
López Piñeiro, C., & Hicks D. (2015). Reception of Spanish sociology by domestic and foreign audiences differs and has consequences for evaluation. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 78–89, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu030López PiñeiroC.HicksD. (2015). Reception of Spanish sociology by domestic and foreign audiences differs and has consequences for evaluation. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 78–89, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu030Search in Google Scholar
Luukkonen T. (2012). Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 48–60, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs001.LuukkonenT. (2012). Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 48–60, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs001.Search in Google Scholar
Maisano D. A., Mastrogiacomo L., & Franceschini F. (2020). Short-term effects of non-competitive funding to single academic researchers. Scientometrics, 123(3), 1261–1280, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03449-x.MaisanoD. A.MastrogiacomoL.FranceschiniF. (2020). Short-term effects of non-competitive funding to single academic researchers. Scientometrics, 123(3), 1261–1280, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03449-x.Search in Google Scholar
Mali F., Pustovrh T., Platinovšek R., Kronegger L., & Ferligoj A. (2017). The effects of funding and co-authorship on research performance in a small scientific community. Science and Public Policy (Science and Public Policy), 44(4), 486–496, from https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw076.MaliF.PustovrhT.PlatinovšekR.KroneggerL.FerligojA. (2017). The effects of funding and co-authorship on research performance in a small scientific community. Science and Public Policy (Science and Public Policy), 44(4), 486–496, from https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw076.Search in Google Scholar
Marina T., & Sterligov I. (2021). Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5019-5077, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03899-xMarinaT.SterligovI. (2021). Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5019-5077, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03899-xSearch in Google Scholar
Moed H. F., Markusova V., & Akoev M. (2018). Trends in Russian research output indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. Scientometrics, 116(2), 1153–1180, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2769-8.MoedH. F.MarkusovaV.AkoevM. (2018). Trends in Russian research output indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. Scientometrics, 116(2), 1153–1180, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2769-8.Search in Google Scholar
Mongeon P., Brodeur C., Beaudry C., & Larivière V. (2016). Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal returns. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 396–404, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw007.MongeonP.BrodeurC.BeaudryC.LarivièreV. (2016). Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal returns. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 396–404, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw007.Search in Google Scholar
Morillo F. (2019). Collaboration and impact of research in different disciplines with international funding (from the EU and other foreign sources). Scientometrics, 120(2), 807–823, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03150-8.MorilloF. (2019). Collaboration and impact of research in different disciplines with international funding (from the EU and other foreign sources). Scientometrics, 120(2), 807–823, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03150-8.Search in Google Scholar
Mosbah-Natanson S., & Gingras Y. (2014). The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009). Current Sociology, 62(5), 626–646, from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113498866.Mosbah-NatansonS.GingrasY. (2014). The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009). Current Sociology, 62(5), 626–646, from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113498866.Search in Google Scholar
Najman J. M., & Hewitt B. (2003). The validity of publication and citation counts for Sociology and other selected disciplines. Journal of Sociology, 39(1), 62–80, from https://doi.org/10.1177/144078330303900106.NajmanJ. M.HewittB. (2003). The validity of publication and citation counts for Sociology and other selected disciplines. Journal of Sociology, 39(1), 62–80, from https://doi.org/10.1177/144078330303900106.Search in Google Scholar
Nederhof A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2.NederhofA. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2.Search in Google Scholar
Park M., Leahey E., & Funk R. J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613(7942), 138-144, from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-xParkM.LeaheyE.FunkR. J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613(7942), 138-144, from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-xSearch in Google Scholar
Paudel P. K., Giri B., & Dhakal S. (2020). Is research in peril in Nepal? Publication trend and research quality from projects funded by the University Grants Commission-Nepal. Accountability in Research, 27(7), 444–456, from https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1768374.PaudelP. K.GiriB.DhakalS. (2020). Is research in peril in Nepal? Publication trend and research quality from projects funded by the University Grants Commission-Nepal. Accountability in Research, 27(7), 444–456, from https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1768374.Search in Google Scholar
Sandström U., & Hällsten M. (2008). Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics, 74(2), 175-189, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3SandströmU.HällstenM. (2008). Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics, 74(2), 175-189, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3Search in Google Scholar
Saygitov R. T. (2014). The impact of funding through the RF President’s Grants for young scientists (the field – medicine) on research productivity: A quasi-experimental study and a brief systematic review. PLOS ONE, 9(1), e86969, from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086969SaygitovR. T. (2014). The impact of funding through the RF President’s Grants for young scientists (the field – medicine) on research productivity: A quasi-experimental study and a brief systematic review. PLOS ONE, 9(1), e86969, from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086969Search in Google Scholar
Sokolov M. (2019). The sources of academic localism and globalism in Russian sociology: The choice of professional ideologies and occupational niches among social scientists. Current Sociology, 67(6), 818–837, from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118811392SokolovM. (2019). The sources of academic localism and globalism in Russian sociology: The choice of professional ideologies and occupational niches among social scientists. Current Sociology, 67(6), 818–837, from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118811392Search in Google Scholar
Sokolov M. (2021). Can Russian Research Policy be Called Neoliberal? A Study in the Comparative Sociology of Quantification. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(6), 989–1009, from https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2021.1902945SokolovM. (2021). Can Russian Research Policy be Called Neoliberal? A Study in the Comparative Sociology of Quantification. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(6), 989–1009, from https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2021.1902945Search in Google Scholar
Sterligov I. (2017). The monster ten you have never heard of: Top Russian scholarly megajournals. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 11, 11–13.SterligovI. (2017). The monster ten you have never heard of: Top Russian scholarly megajournals. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 11, 11–13.Search in Google Scholar
Tonta Y. (2018). Does monetary support increase the number of scientific papers? An interrupted time series analysis. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(1), 19–39, from https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/jdis/3/1/article-p19.xml.TontaY. (2018). Does monetary support increase the number of scientific papers? An interrupted time series analysis. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(1),19–39, from https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/jdis/3/1/article-p19.xml.Search in Google Scholar
van den Besselaar P. (2012). Selection committee membership: Service or self-service. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 580-585, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.05.003van den BesselaarP. (2012). Selection committee membership: Service or self-service. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 580-585, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.05.003Search in Google Scholar
van Raan A. F. J. (1998). In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much. Scientometrics, 43(1), 129–139, from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458401.van RaanA. F. J. (1998). In matters of quantitative studies of science the fault of theorists is offering too little and asking too much. Scientometrics, 43(1), 129–139, from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458401.Search in Google Scholar
Wang J., & Shapira P. (2015). Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0117727, from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117727.WangJ.ShapiraP. (2015). Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0117727, from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117727.Search in Google Scholar
Wang L. L., Wang X. W., Piro F. N., & Philipsen N. (2020). The effect of competitive public funding on scientific output. Research Evaluation, 2020(September), 1–13, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa023WangL. L.WangX. W.PiroF. N.PhilipsenN. (2020). The effect of competitive public funding on scientific output. Research Evaluation, 2020(September), 1–13, from https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa023Search in Google Scholar
Wuchty S., Jones B. F., & Uzzi B. (2007). The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039, from https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099WuchtyS.JonesB. F.UzziB. (2007). The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039, from https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099Search in Google Scholar
Yan E., Wu C. J., & Song M. (2018). The funding factor: A cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact. Scientometrics, 115(1), 369–384, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2583-8.YanE.WuC. J.SongM. (2018). The funding factor: A cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact. Scientometrics, 115(1), 369–384, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2583-8.Search in Google Scholar
Zhao S. X., Lou W., Tan A. M., & Yu S. (2018). Do funded papers attract more usage? Scientometrics, 115(1), 153–168, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2662-5.ZhaoS. X.LouW.TanA. M.YuS. (2018). Do funded papers attract more usage?Scientometrics, 115(1), 153–168, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2662-5.Search in Google Scholar
, y | 07 jun 2023