Development strategy and collaboration preference in S&T of enterprises based on funded papers: a case study of Google

  • Rongying Zhao
  • Xinlai LiEmail author
  • Zhisen Liang
  • Danyang Li


Science funding plays a guiding role in the development direction of scientific innovation. As one of research funding providers, private companies influence the development of science and technology (S&T) through their selective support. Thus, strategy and layout of enterprises in S&T can be revealed by analysing their funded papers. Taking Google as the example, the paper proposes an analytical method of funded papers by the combination of co-word analysis, clusters analysis and social network analysis, so as to explore the scientific strategy and collaboration preference. The total 2162 valid bibliographic records of papers supported by Google from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science are divided into four groups according to discipline clusters using Hierarchical Clustering Algorithm. Social network analysis is conducted to detect communities among keywords and institutions. The results demonstrate that Google shows different funding patterns between traditional research fields and emerging industries. Famous universities are the main funding targets of Google, and the important institutions can be divided into two groups.


Funded paper Funding strategy Collaboration preferences Scientific collaboration Hierarchical cluster analysis Social network analysis 



This research is funded by the National Social Science Found Major Project of China (18ZDA325), the National Social Science Found Project of China (16BTQ055) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [Independent Research Projects of Wuhan University (Humanities and Social Sciences)].


  1. Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. An, X. Y., & Wu, Q. Q. (2011). Co-word analysis of the trends in stem cells field based on subject heading weighting. Scientometrics, 88(1), 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  4. Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy, 27(8), 807–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (2015). Biomedicine. Google[x] searches for ways to boost cancer immunotherapy. Science, 347(6219), 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Desai, A. D., Peng, C., Fang, L., Mukherjee, D., Yeung, A., Jaffe, S. J., et al. (2018). Open-source, machine and deep learning-based automated algorithm for gestational age estimation through smartphone lens imaging. Biomedical Optics Express, 9, 6038–6052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dukic, V., Lopes, H., & Polson, N. (2012). Tracking epidemics with Google flu trends data and a state-space SEIR model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107(500), 1410–1426.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2016). How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors. Scientometrics, 106(3), 1093–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fan, D.-C, Song, Z.-L., Fang, L. (2016). 23rd Annual international conference on management science and engineering (ICMSE): Analysis of the effect of government funds, enterprise funds in industry innovation of high-tech industry—a view based on factor input. Olten, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  10. Focused Research Awards program. (2019). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from:
  11. Freeman, L. C., Roeder, D., & Mulholland, R. R. (1979). Centrality in social networks: ii. Experimental results. Social Networks, 2(2), 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghosh, J., Kshitij, A., & Kadyan, S. (2015). Functional information characteristics of large-scale research collaboration: network measures and implications. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1207–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldfarb, B. (2008). The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy, 37(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Google Faculty Research Awards. (2019). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from:
  15. Google Ph.D. Fellowships. (2019). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from:
  16. Google Summer of Code. (2019). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from:
  17. (2019). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from:
  18. Grunspan, D. Z., Wiggins, B. L., & Goodreau, S. M. (2014). Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: A primer for social network analysis in education research. Cbe Life Sci Educ, 13(2), 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ida, T., & Fukuzawa, N. (2013). Effects of large-scale research funding programs: A Japanese case study. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1253–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kang, Y. H., & Su, J. Q. (2008). Visualization of technology tracking based on co-word analysis: An empirical study of highway engineering. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 27(4), 566–571.Google Scholar
  22. Khuller, S., Kim, Y. A., Malekian, A. (2006). Improved algorithms for data migration. In Approximation, randomization, and combinatorial optimization. Algorithms and techniques. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Liaw, Y. C., Chan, T. Y., Fan, C. Y., & Chiang, C. H. (2014). Can the technological impact of academic journals be evaluated? The practice of non-patent reference (NPR) analysis. Scientometrics, 101(1), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morillo, F. (2016). Public–private interactions reflected through the funding acknowledgements. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1193–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nathan, I., Jordan, G., Richards, B. A., & Gershman, S. J. (2018). Irrelevance by inhibition: learning, computation, and implications for schizophrenia. PLoS Computational Biology, 14(8), e1006315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Natural Science Foundation of China. (2018). Statistical information of National Natural Science Foundation of China in 2018. Retrieved December 15, 2018 from:
  27. Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paisley, J., Wang, C., & Blei, D. M. (2012). The discrete infinite logistic normal distribution. Bayesian Analysis, 7(4), 997–1034.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Ravikumar, S., Agrahari, A., & Singh, S. N. (2015). Mapping the intellectual structure of scientometrics: A co-word analysis of the journal Scientometrics (2005–2010). Scientometrics, 102(1), 929–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rupp, K., Tillet, P., Rudolf, F., Weinbub, J., Morhammer, A., Grasser, T., et al. (2016). Viennacl—linear algebra library for multi- and many-core architectures. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 38(5), S412–S439.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Sun, X. G. (2010). Quantitative analysis upon fund-sponsored theses in 1998–2008 information science. Information Science, 28(4), 545–549.Google Scholar
  33. Tahmooresnejad, L., Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States. Scientometrics, 102(1), 753–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vardakas, K. Z., Tsopanakis, G., Poulopoulou, A., & Falagas, M. E. (2015). An analysis of factors contributing to Pub Med’s growth. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 592–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wei, Z. M. (2011). Quantitative analysis upon fund-sponsored dissertations in 2006–2009 Library Tribune—again analysis following 1993–2005 this publication fund-sponsored dissertations. Library Tribune, 31(1), 52–54.Google Scholar
  38. Yim, O., & Ramdeen, K. T. (2015). Hierarchical cluster analysis: Comparison of three linkage measures and application to psychological data. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 11(1), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhao, D. Z. (2010). Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: A case study of the library and information science field. Scientometrics, 84(2), 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhao, S. X., Yu, S., Tan, A. M., Xu, X., & Yu, H. Y. (2016). Global pattern of science funding in economics. Scientometrics, 109(1), 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhi-Yi, S., Yong-Ming, L., Fen, H., Yang, Z., Ying-Jie, G., & Filippo, R. (2018). Interdisciplinarity research based on NSFC-sponsored projects: A case study of mathematics in Chinese universities. PLoS ONE, 13(7), e0201577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center for China Science EvaluationWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.School of Information ManagementWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  3. 3.Center for Studies of Information ResoursesWuhan UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations