ArticleScientometrics2022
The relationship between academics' strategic research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development.
Article in Scientometrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engaged Medical Humanities-A Framework for Knowledge Production in Research Collaborations.The Journal of medical humanities · 2026Article
- The Association of Research Quantitative Measures With Faculty Ranks of Australian and New Zealand Dental Schools.Cureus · 2023Article
- The relationship between academics' strategic research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development.Scientometrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we assess the association between academics' research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development. Using a sample of Mexican academics working in some of the country's most research-oriented universities, we identify three clusters. The largest is composed of applied research-oriented academics, the second largest is composed of basic research-oriented academics, and the smallest is composed of academics who engage in both basic and applied research, and experimental development. The strategic research agendas of the three clusters are distinguished from each other along four main dimensions: Divergence, Discovery, Mentor Influence, and Social Orientation. These findings show that strategic research agendas are associated with preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development, but only to some extent. We also extend the Multi-Dimensional Research Agendas Inventory - Revised, a widely used instrument for measuring strategic research agendas, by adding a new dimension, "Government," and validating the instrument in a new context. We also make the scale available in Spanish for use by academics, practitioners, managers, and administrators in Spanish-speaking countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.