Advanced search in
Research products
arrow_drop_down
Searching FieldsTerms
Any field
arrow_drop_down
includes
arrow_drop_down
Include:
27 Research products, page 1 of 3

  • 2013-2022
  • Open Access
  • Article
  • 050905 science studies
  • European Commission
  • Scientometrics

10
arrow_drop_down
Relevance
arrow_drop_down
  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Benedetto Lepori; Valerio Veglio; Barbara Heller-Schuh; Thomas Scherngell; Michael J. Barber;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Country: Switzerland
    Project: EC | RISIS (313082)

    This paper aims to analyze patterns of participation of higher education institutions (HEIs) to European Framework Programs (EU-FP) and their association with HEI characteristics, country and geographical effects. We have analyzed a sample of 2235 HEIs in 30 countries in Europe, derived from the European Tertiary Education Register (ETER), which has been matched with data on participations in EU-FPs in 2011 using the EUPRO database. Our findings identified (1) a high concentration of EU-FP participation in a small group of HEIs with high reputation; (2) the participation of non-doctorate awarding HEIs in EU-FPs is very limited despite the fact that they account for a significant share of tertiary student enrolments; (3) the number of participations tends to increase proportionally to organizational size, and is strongly influenced by international reputation; (5) there is limited evidence of significant country effects in EU-FP participations, as well as of the impact of distance from Brussels. We interpret these results as an outcome of the close association between HEI reputation and the network structure of EU-FP participants.

  • Publication . Article . Preprint . 2016
    Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Peter Wittek; Sándor Darányi; Gustaf Nelhans;
    Publisher: Högskolan i Borås, Akademin för bibliotek, information, pedagogik och IT
    Project: EC | PERICLES (601138)

    Citation and coauthor networks offer an insight into the dynamics of scientific progress. We can also view them as representations of a causal structure, a logical process captured in a graph. From a causal perspective, we can ask questions such as whether authors form groups primarily due to their prior shared interest, or if their favourite topics are 'contagious' and spread through co-authorship. Such networks have been widely studied by the artificial intelligence community, and recently a connection has been made to nonlocal correlations produced by entangled particles in quantum physics -- the impact of latent hidden variables can be analyzed by the same algebraic geometric methodology that relies on a sequence of semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxations. Following this trail, we treat our sample coauthor network as a causal graph and, using SDP relaxations, rule out latent homophily as a manifestation of prior shared interest leading to the observed patternedness. By introducing algebraic geometry to citation studies, we add a new tool to existing methods for the analysis of content-related social influences. 14 pages, 1 figure, computational details are available at https://github.com/peterwittek/ipython-notebooks/blob/master/Citation_Network_SDP.ipynb. in Scientometrics, 2016

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Peter van den Besselaar; Ulf Sandström;
    Publisher: Springer Nature
    Project: EC | GENDERC (610706)

    We take up the issue of performance differences between male and female researchers, and investigate the change of performance differences during the early career. In a previous paper it was shown that among starting researchers gendered performance differences seem small to non-existent (Van Arensbergen et al. 2012). If the differences do not occur in the early career anymore, they may emerge in a later period, or may remain absent. In this paper we use the same sample of male and female researchers, but now compare performance levels about 10 years later. We use various performance indicators: full/fractional counted productivity, citation impact, and relative citation impact in terms of the share of papers in the top 10 % highly cited papers. After the 10 years period, productivity of male researchers has grown faster than of female researcher, but the field normalized (relative) citation impact indicators of male and female researchers remain about equal. Furthermore, performance data do explain to a certain extent why male careers in our sample develop much faster than female researchers’ careers; but controlling for performance differences, we find that gender is an important determinant too. Consequently, the process of hiring academic staff still remains biased.

  • Publication . Article . Preprint . 2013
    Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Olesya Mryglod; Ralph Kenna; Yu. Holovatch; Bertrand Berche;
    Publisher: HAL CCSD
    Country: France
    Project: EC | DCP-PHYSBIO (269139), EC | SPIDER (295302)

    International audience; A desirable goal of scientific management is to introduce, if it exists, a simple and reliable way to measure the scientific excellence of publicly funded research institutions and universities to serve as a basis for their ranking and financing. While citation-based indicators and metrics are easily accessible, they are far from being universally accepted as way to automate or inform evaluation processes or to replace evaluations based on peer review. Here we consider absolute measurements of research excellence at an amalgamated, institutional level and specific measures of research excellence as performance per head. Using biology research institutions in the UK as a test case, we examine the correlations between peer review-based and citation-based measures of research excellence on these two scales. We find that citation-based indicators are very highly correlated with peer-evaluated measures of group strength, but are poorly correlated with group quality. Thus, and almost paradoxically, our analysis indicates that citation counts could possibly form a basis for deciding on, how to fund research institutions, but they should not be used as a basis for ranking them in terms of quality.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Teemu Makkonen; Timo Mitze;
    Publisher: Springer Netherlands
    Countries: United Kingdom, Denmark
    Project: EC | CRISI (624930)

    This paper provides new insights on the effects of the enlargement of the European Union (EU) and European integration by investigating the issue of scientific collaboration within the new EU member states vis-à-vis the old EU member states. The question addressed is whether the EU membership following the two enlargement waves 2004 and 2007 has significantly increased the co-publication intensity of the new member states with other member countries. The empirical results based on data collected from the Web of Science database and Difference-in-Difference estimations point towards a conclusion that joining the EU indeed has had an additional positive impact on the co-publication intensity between the new and old member states and, in particular, within the new member states themselves. These results give tentative support for the successfulness of the EU’s science policies in achieving a common ‘internal market’ in research. We also find evidence for early anticipation effects of the consecutive EU accession.

  • Publication . Article . Other literature type . 2017
    Open Access
    Authors: 
    Maja Jokić; Andrea Mervar; Stjepan Mateljan;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Country: Croatia
    Project: EC | I3U (645884)

    The scientific potential of European countries measured by their participation in publication of all peer-review journals as well as open access journals (OAJs) is significant. In this paper we focus on European fully open access journals (OAJs) as a potentially optimal channel of communication in science. We explore fully OAJs (n=1201) indexed by Scopus with several bibliometric indicators: quartile rankings, SJR (SCImago Journal Ranking) and h-index. As countries in our focus have entered EU at different times and have diverse backgrounds, we divide them into three groups: A (members before 1995), B (became members in 2004-2013 period) and C (EU candidate countries). Analysis across country groups is complemented with analysis across major subject fields. Quartile rankings indicate that journals in Q1 dominate in group A, followed by journals in Q2. In the remaining two country groups, journals belonging to Q3 have more than 50% of the share. Analysis by different scientific fields stresses that life and health sciences have the highest shares of OAJs in Q1. In physical sciences the highest share of OAJs is in Q3 while combined shares of Q2 and Q3 are above 50%. Only 10% of all European OAJs in social sciences is in Q1. Furthermore, we find the least difference between journals in group A and groups B and C in social sciences, both in respect to coverage and quality indicators. In all scientific fields median SJR indicators is, in the case of groups B and C, higher for OAJs than non-OAJs as opposed to group A.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Grimaldo, Francisco; Paolucci, Mario; Sabater-Mir, Jordi; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona;
    Publisher: Springer International Publishing
    Countries: Italy, Spain
    Project: EC | FUTURICT (284709)

    We present an agent-based model of paper publication and consumption that allows to study the effect of two different evaluation mechanisms, peer review and reputation, on the quality of the manuscripts accessed by a scientific community. The model was empirically calibrated on two data sets, mono- and multi-disciplinary. Our results point out that disciplinary settings differ in the rapidity with which they deal with extreme events—papers that have an extremely high quality, that we call outliers. In the mono-disciplinary case, reputation is better than traditional peer review to optimize the quality of papers read by researchers. In the multi-disciplinary case, if the quality landscape is relatively flat, a reputation system also performs better. In the presence of outliers, peer review is more effective. Our simulation suggests that a reputation system could perform better than peer review as a scientific information filter for quality except when research is multi-disciplinary and in a field where outliers exist. This work was partially supported by the COST Action TD1306 ”New frontiers of peer review” (www.peere.org), by the FuturICT 2.0 (www.futurict2.eu) project funded by the FLAG-ERA JCT 2017, by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Project TIN2015-66972-C5-5-R and by the University of Valencia under grant UV-INV_EPDI17-548224. Peer reviewed

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Amalia Mas-Bleda; Mike Thelwall; Kayvan Kousha; Isidro F. Aguillo;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Country: Spain
    Project: EC | ACUMEN (266632)

    Academics can now use the web and the social websites to disseminate scholarly information in a variety of different ways. Although some scholars have taken advantage of these new online opportunities, it is not clear how widespread their uptake is or how much impact they can have. This study assesses the extent to which successful scientists have social web presences, focusing on one influential group: highly cited researchers working at European institutions. It also assesses the impact of these presences. We manually and systematically identified if the European highly cited researchers had profiles in Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, Mendeley, Academia and LinkedIn or any content in SlideShare. We then used URL mentions and altmetric indicators to assess the impact of the web presences found. Although most of the scientists had an institutional website of some kind, few had created a profile in any social website investigated, and LinkedIn - the only non-academic site in the list - was the most popular. Scientists having one kind of social web profile were more likely to have another in many cases, especially in the life sciences and engineering. In most cases it was possible to estimate the relative impact of the profiles using a readily available statistic and there were disciplinary differences in the impact of the different kinds of profiles. Most social web profiles had some evidence of uptake, if not impact; nevertheless, the value of the indicators used is unclear. “This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Scientometrics. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0”. Peer reviewed

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Simone Belli; Joan Baltà;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Project: EC | EULAC Focus (693781)

    Mapping bi-regional scientific collaboration demands multiple approaches to obtain a picture as complete as possible. Usually, the first approach is the measuring of the number and typology of scientific co-publications in the most visible indexes of journals and publications covered by databases like Web of Science or Scopus, among others. This paper analyzes scientific publications listed by Web of Science (WoS), which comprises authors from the 28 EU countries and Latin American and Caribbean countries (EULAC) between 2005 and 2016. The following questions have been addressed: How are bi-regional scientific relations between EULAC countries reflected by international collaboration? What effects does this scientific collaboration have in smaller or emerging countries? Which area of knowledge has more international collaborations? The study highlights the existence of a growing global network of researchers from several countries that collaborate on their research. EULAC scientific collaboration cannot be understood in isolation from this global network.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Mario Paolucci; Francisco Grimaldo;
    Publisher: Springer Nature
    Country: Italy
    Project: EC | FUTURICT (284709)

    Abstract Peer review works as the hinge of the scientific process, mediating between research and the awareness/acceptance of its results. While it might seem obvious that science would regulate itself scientifically, the consensus on peer review is eroding; a deeper understanding of its workings and potential alternatives is sorely needed. Employing a theoretical approach supported by agent-based simulation, we examined computational models of peer review, performing what we propose to call redesign, that is, the replication of simulations using different mechanisms. Here, we show that we are able to obtain the high sensitivity to rational cheating that is present in literature. In addition, we also show how this result appears to be fragile against small variations in mechanisms. Therefore, we argue that exploration of the parameter space is not enough if we want to support theoretical statements with simulation, and that exploration at the level of mechanisms is needed. These findings also support prudence in the application of simulation results based on single mechanisms, and endorse the use of complex agent platforms that encourage experimentation of diverse mechanisms.

Advanced search in
Research products
arrow_drop_down
Searching FieldsTerms
Any field
arrow_drop_down
includes
arrow_drop_down
Include:
27 Research products, page 1 of 3
  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Benedetto Lepori; Valerio Veglio; Barbara Heller-Schuh; Thomas Scherngell; Michael J. Barber;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Country: Switzerland
    Project: EC | RISIS (313082)

    This paper aims to analyze patterns of participation of higher education institutions (HEIs) to European Framework Programs (EU-FP) and their association with HEI characteristics, country and geographical effects. We have analyzed a sample of 2235 HEIs in 30 countries in Europe, derived from the European Tertiary Education Register (ETER), which has been matched with data on participations in EU-FPs in 2011 using the EUPRO database. Our findings identified (1) a high concentration of EU-FP participation in a small group of HEIs with high reputation; (2) the participation of non-doctorate awarding HEIs in EU-FPs is very limited despite the fact that they account for a significant share of tertiary student enrolments; (3) the number of participations tends to increase proportionally to organizational size, and is strongly influenced by international reputation; (5) there is limited evidence of significant country effects in EU-FP participations, as well as of the impact of distance from Brussels. We interpret these results as an outcome of the close association between HEI reputation and the network structure of EU-FP participants.

  • Publication . Article . Preprint . 2016
    Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Peter Wittek; Sándor Darányi; Gustaf Nelhans;
    Publisher: Högskolan i Borås, Akademin för bibliotek, information, pedagogik och IT
    Project: EC | PERICLES (601138)

    Citation and coauthor networks offer an insight into the dynamics of scientific progress. We can also view them as representations of a causal structure, a logical process captured in a graph. From a causal perspective, we can ask questions such as whether authors form groups primarily due to their prior shared interest, or if their favourite topics are 'contagious' and spread through co-authorship. Such networks have been widely studied by the artificial intelligence community, and recently a connection has been made to nonlocal correlations produced by entangled particles in quantum physics -- the impact of latent hidden variables can be analyzed by the same algebraic geometric methodology that relies on a sequence of semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxations. Following this trail, we treat our sample coauthor network as a causal graph and, using SDP relaxations, rule out latent homophily as a manifestation of prior shared interest leading to the observed patternedness. By introducing algebraic geometry to citation studies, we add a new tool to existing methods for the analysis of content-related social influences. 14 pages, 1 figure, computational details are available at https://github.com/peterwittek/ipython-notebooks/blob/master/Citation_Network_SDP.ipynb. in Scientometrics, 2016

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Peter van den Besselaar; Ulf Sandström;
    Publisher: Springer Nature
    Project: EC | GENDERC (610706)

    We take up the issue of performance differences between male and female researchers, and investigate the change of performance differences during the early career. In a previous paper it was shown that among starting researchers gendered performance differences seem small to non-existent (Van Arensbergen et al. 2012). If the differences do not occur in the early career anymore, they may emerge in a later period, or may remain absent. In this paper we use the same sample of male and female researchers, but now compare performance levels about 10 years later. We use various performance indicators: full/fractional counted productivity, citation impact, and relative citation impact in terms of the share of papers in the top 10 % highly cited papers. After the 10 years period, productivity of male researchers has grown faster than of female researcher, but the field normalized (relative) citation impact indicators of male and female researchers remain about equal. Furthermore, performance data do explain to a certain extent why male careers in our sample develop much faster than female researchers’ careers; but controlling for performance differences, we find that gender is an important determinant too. Consequently, the process of hiring academic staff still remains biased.

  • Publication . Article . Preprint . 2013
    Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Olesya Mryglod; Ralph Kenna; Yu. Holovatch; Bertrand Berche;
    Publisher: HAL CCSD
    Country: France
    Project: EC | DCP-PHYSBIO (269139), EC | SPIDER (295302)

    International audience; A desirable goal of scientific management is to introduce, if it exists, a simple and reliable way to measure the scientific excellence of publicly funded research institutions and universities to serve as a basis for their ranking and financing. While citation-based indicators and metrics are easily accessible, they are far from being universally accepted as way to automate or inform evaluation processes or to replace evaluations based on peer review. Here we consider absolute measurements of research excellence at an amalgamated, institutional level and specific measures of research excellence as performance per head. Using biology research institutions in the UK as a test case, we examine the correlations between peer review-based and citation-based measures of research excellence on these two scales. We find that citation-based indicators are very highly correlated with peer-evaluated measures of group strength, but are poorly correlated with group quality. Thus, and almost paradoxically, our analysis indicates that citation counts could possibly form a basis for deciding on, how to fund research institutions, but they should not be used as a basis for ranking them in terms of quality.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Teemu Makkonen; Timo Mitze;
    Publisher: Springer Netherlands
    Countries: United Kingdom, Denmark
    Project: EC | CRISI (624930)

    This paper provides new insights on the effects of the enlargement of the European Union (EU) and European integration by investigating the issue of scientific collaboration within the new EU member states vis-à-vis the old EU member states. The question addressed is whether the EU membership following the two enlargement waves 2004 and 2007 has significantly increased the co-publication intensity of the new member states with other member countries. The empirical results based on data collected from the Web of Science database and Difference-in-Difference estimations point towards a conclusion that joining the EU indeed has had an additional positive impact on the co-publication intensity between the new and old member states and, in particular, within the new member states themselves. These results give tentative support for the successfulness of the EU’s science policies in achieving a common ‘internal market’ in research. We also find evidence for early anticipation effects of the consecutive EU accession.

  • Publication . Article . Other literature type . 2017
    Open Access
    Authors: 
    Maja Jokić; Andrea Mervar; Stjepan Mateljan;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Country: Croatia
    Project: EC | I3U (645884)

    The scientific potential of European countries measured by their participation in publication of all peer-review journals as well as open access journals (OAJs) is significant. In this paper we focus on European fully open access journals (OAJs) as a potentially optimal channel of communication in science. We explore fully OAJs (n=1201) indexed by Scopus with several bibliometric indicators: quartile rankings, SJR (SCImago Journal Ranking) and h-index. As countries in our focus have entered EU at different times and have diverse backgrounds, we divide them into three groups: A (members before 1995), B (became members in 2004-2013 period) and C (EU candidate countries). Analysis across country groups is complemented with analysis across major subject fields. Quartile rankings indicate that journals in Q1 dominate in group A, followed by journals in Q2. In the remaining two country groups, journals belonging to Q3 have more than 50% of the share. Analysis by different scientific fields stresses that life and health sciences have the highest shares of OAJs in Q1. In physical sciences the highest share of OAJs is in Q3 while combined shares of Q2 and Q3 are above 50%. Only 10% of all European OAJs in social sciences is in Q1. Furthermore, we find the least difference between journals in group A and groups B and C in social sciences, both in respect to coverage and quality indicators. In all scientific fields median SJR indicators is, in the case of groups B and C, higher for OAJs than non-OAJs as opposed to group A.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Grimaldo, Francisco; Paolucci, Mario; Sabater-Mir, Jordi; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona;
    Publisher: Springer International Publishing
    Countries: Italy, Spain
    Project: EC | FUTURICT (284709)

    We present an agent-based model of paper publication and consumption that allows to study the effect of two different evaluation mechanisms, peer review and reputation, on the quality of the manuscripts accessed by a scientific community. The model was empirically calibrated on two data sets, mono- and multi-disciplinary. Our results point out that disciplinary settings differ in the rapidity with which they deal with extreme events—papers that have an extremely high quality, that we call outliers. In the mono-disciplinary case, reputation is better than traditional peer review to optimize the quality of papers read by researchers. In the multi-disciplinary case, if the quality landscape is relatively flat, a reputation system also performs better. In the presence of outliers, peer review is more effective. Our simulation suggests that a reputation system could perform better than peer review as a scientific information filter for quality except when research is multi-disciplinary and in a field where outliers exist. This work was partially supported by the COST Action TD1306 ”New frontiers of peer review” (www.peere.org), by the FuturICT 2.0 (www.futurict2.eu) project funded by the FLAG-ERA JCT 2017, by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Project TIN2015-66972-C5-5-R and by the University of Valencia under grant UV-INV_EPDI17-548224. Peer reviewed

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Amalia Mas-Bleda; Mike Thelwall; Kayvan Kousha; Isidro F. Aguillo;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Country: Spain
    Project: EC | ACUMEN (266632)

    Academics can now use the web and the social websites to disseminate scholarly information in a variety of different ways. Although some scholars have taken advantage of these new online opportunities, it is not clear how widespread their uptake is or how much impact they can have. This study assesses the extent to which successful scientists have social web presences, focusing on one influential group: highly cited researchers working at European institutions. It also assesses the impact of these presences. We manually and systematically identified if the European highly cited researchers had profiles in Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, Mendeley, Academia and LinkedIn or any content in SlideShare. We then used URL mentions and altmetric indicators to assess the impact of the web presences found. Although most of the scientists had an institutional website of some kind, few had created a profile in any social website investigated, and LinkedIn - the only non-academic site in the list - was the most popular. Scientists having one kind of social web profile were more likely to have another in many cases, especially in the life sciences and engineering. In most cases it was possible to estimate the relative impact of the profiles using a readily available statistic and there were disciplinary differences in the impact of the different kinds of profiles. Most social web profiles had some evidence of uptake, if not impact; nevertheless, the value of the indicators used is unclear. “This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Scientometrics. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0”. Peer reviewed

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Simone Belli; Joan Baltà;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Project: EC | EULAC Focus (693781)

    Mapping bi-regional scientific collaboration demands multiple approaches to obtain a picture as complete as possible. Usually, the first approach is the measuring of the number and typology of scientific co-publications in the most visible indexes of journals and publications covered by databases like Web of Science or Scopus, among others. This paper analyzes scientific publications listed by Web of Science (WoS), which comprises authors from the 28 EU countries and Latin American and Caribbean countries (EULAC) between 2005 and 2016. The following questions have been addressed: How are bi-regional scientific relations between EULAC countries reflected by international collaboration? What effects does this scientific collaboration have in smaller or emerging countries? Which area of knowledge has more international collaborations? The study highlights the existence of a growing global network of researchers from several countries that collaborate on their research. EULAC scientific collaboration cannot be understood in isolation from this global network.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Mario Paolucci; Francisco Grimaldo;
    Publisher: Springer Nature
    Country: Italy
    Project: EC | FUTURICT (284709)

    Abstract Peer review works as the hinge of the scientific process, mediating between research and the awareness/acceptance of its results. While it might seem obvious that science would regulate itself scientifically, the consensus on peer review is eroding; a deeper understanding of its workings and potential alternatives is sorely needed. Employing a theoretical approach supported by agent-based simulation, we examined computational models of peer review, performing what we propose to call redesign, that is, the replication of simulations using different mechanisms. Here, we show that we are able to obtain the high sensitivity to rational cheating that is present in literature. In addition, we also show how this result appears to be fragile against small variations in mechanisms. Therefore, we argue that exploration of the parameter space is not enough if we want to support theoretical statements with simulation, and that exploration at the level of mechanisms is needed. These findings also support prudence in the application of simulation results based on single mechanisms, and endorse the use of complex agent platforms that encourage experimentation of diverse mechanisms.

Send a message
How can we help?
We usually respond in a few hours.