1. یغمائی، ابوتراب (1397)، «ارزیابی فلسفی مدل خطی از تمایز علم محض−علم کاربردی مطالعهای موردی در علم نانو»، فلسفه علم، 8 (1)، ص139−156.
2. یغمائی، ابوتراب (1398)، «چرا دوگانگی میان برونگرایی و درونگرایی نباید منحل شود تحلیلی از تاریخ تمایز علم محض/ علم کاربردی»، مجله تاریخ علم، 14 (1)، ص133−151.
3. Alexander, Jennifer Karns (2012), “Thinking again about science in technology”, Isis, 103 (3), 518-26.
4. Bardeen, John (1947), “Surface states and rectification at a metal semi-conductor contact”, Physical Review, 71 (10), 717.
5. Board, National Science (2007), Enhancing support of transformative research at the National Science Foundation, (National Science Foundation).
6. Boon, Mieke (2006), “How science is applied in technology”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20 (01), 27-47.
7. Bud, Robert (2012),“ Applied Science”: A Phrase in Search of a Meaning', Isis, 103 (3), 537-45.
8. Bud, Robert (2014), “Applied science” in nineteenth-century Britain: public discourse and the creation of meaning, 1817–1876', History and Technology, 30 (1-2), 3-36.
9. Bud, Robert (2018), “Categorizing Science in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Britain”, Basic and Applied Research: The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century, 4, 35.
10. Bush, Vannevar (1945), Science: the Endless Frontier, (Charter Document for the US National Science Foundation; Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office).
11. Cartwright, N (1976), “How do we apply science?”, PSA 1974 (Springer), 713-19.
12. Cartwright, N (1983), How the laws of physics lie, (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
13. Channell, David F (1982), “The harmony of theory and practice: The engineering science of WJM Rankine”, Technology and Culture, 23 (1), 39-52.
14. Clarke, Sabine (2010), “Pure science with a practical aim: The meanings of fundamental research in Britain, circa 1916–1950”, Isis, 101 (2), 285-311.
15. CST (2010), “A Vision for UK Research”, in The Council for Science and Technology (ed.), (London: The Council for Science and Technology).
16. Douglas, Heather (2014), “Pure science and the problem of progress”, Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 46, 55-63.
17. Farrell, Robert and Hooker, Cliff (2012), “The Simon–Kroes model of technical artifacts and the distinction between science and design”, Design studies, 33 (5), 480-95.
18. Flink, Tim and Peter, Tobias, (2018), “Excellence and Frontier Research as Travelling Concepts in Science Policymaking”, Minerva, 56 (4), 431-52.
19. Frigg, R. and Nguyen, J. (2016), “Scientific Representation”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition edn.).
20. Gertner, Jon (2012), The idea factory: Bell Labs and the great age of American innovation, (Penguin).
21. Godin, Benoît (2006), “The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31 (6), 639-67.
22. Godin, Benoît (2019), “Innovation and the marginalization of research”, Handbook on Science and Public Policy (Edward Elgar Publishing).
23. Godin, Benoît and Schauz, Désirée (2016), “The changing identity of research: A cultural and conceptual history”, History of science, 54 (3), 276-306.
24. Gooday, Graeme (2012), “Vague and artificial”: the historically elusive distinction between pure and applied science', Isis, 103 (3), 546-54.
25. Huxley, Julian S. (1934), Scientific Research and Social Needs, (London: Watts and Co).
26. Kaldewey, David and Schauz, Désirée (2018), Basic and Applied Research: The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century, (4: Berghahn Books).
27. Lucier, Paul (2012), “The origins of pure and applied science in gilded age America”, Isis, 103 (3), 527-36.
28. McClellan, J.E. and Dorn, H. (2015), Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction, (Johns Hopkins University Press).
29. Nelson, Richard (1962), “The link between science and invention: The case of the transistor”, The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (Princeton University Press), 549-84.
30. Niiniluoto, Ilkka (1993), “The aim and structure of applied research”, Erkenntnis, 38 (1), 1-21.
31. NSF (1953), “Federal Funds for Science”, in U.S. National Science Foundation (ed.).
32. NSF (1957), “Federal Funds for Science”, in U.S. National Science Foundation (ed.).
33. NSF (2015), “Definitions of research and development: An annotated compilation of official sources”.
34. OECD (1963), “The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities”.
35. OECD (2002), “Frascati Manual: PROPOSED STANDARD PRACTICE FOR SURVEYS ON RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTAL DEVELOPMENT”.
36. Pielke, Roger (2012), “Basic research as a political symbol”, Minerva, 50 (3), 339-61.
37. Rihll, Tracey E and Tucker, John V (2002), “Practice makes perfect: knowledge of materials in classical Athens”, Science and Mathematics in Ancient Greek Culture, 274-305.
38. Roll-Hansen, Nils (2017), “A Historical Perspective on the Distinction Between Basic and Applied Science”, Journal for General Philosophy of Science.
39. Ropohl, Günter (1997), “Knowledge types in technology”, International Journal of technology and design education, 7 (1-2), 65-72.
40. Schauz, Désirée (2014), “What is Basic Research? Insights from Historical Semantics”, Minerva, 52 (3), 273-328.
41. Shockley, W. (1950), Electrons and holes in semiconductors: with applications to transistor electronics, (Van Nostrand).
42. Simon, Herbert A (1968), The sciences of the artificial, (MIT press).
43. Wilson, A.H. (1939), Semi-conductors & Metals: An Introduction to the Electron Theory of Metals, (The University Press).
44. Yaghmaie, Aboutorab (2017), “How to Characterise Pure and Applied Science”, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 31 (2), 133-49.
)