Physics publication productivity in South African universities

Publication productivity during 2009–2011 was studied for physicists who teach in South African universities, using data from departmental websites and Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science. The objective was to find typical ranges of two measures of individual productivity: number of papers and sum of author share, where author share per n-author paper is 1/n author units (AU). All values given below are average output per year. Median productivity was 1.33 papers (inter-quartile range 0.33–2.33) and 0.3 AU (inter-quartile range 0.1–0.5 AU). The lowest 10 % did not publish, and the top 10 % produced above four papers and above 1 AU. Productivity varied with rank, ranging from medians of 0.67 papers and 0.2 AU for lecturers to 1.67 papers and 0.4 AU for full professors. Productivity of South African professors was similar to that of a sample of USA professors in a comparable mid-ranked bracket in the Shanghai Jiao Tong world ranking of universities, and about half that of professors in the six top-ranked departments in the world, which had medians of four papers and 1 AU.     

Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system

The literature dedicated to the analysis of the difference in research productivity between the sexes tends to agree in indicating better performance for men. Through bibliometric examination of the entire population of research personnel working in the scientific-technological disciplines of Italian university system, this study confirms the presence of significant differences in productivity between men and women. The differences are, however, smaller than reported in a large part of the literature, confirming an ongoing tendency towards decline, and are also seen as more noticeable for quantitative performance indicators than other indicators. The gap between the sexes shows significant sectorial differences. In spite of the generally better performance of men, there are scientific sectors in which the performance of women does not prove to be inferior.     

Gender and productivity differentials in science

The paper presents the results of an examination of gender differences in scientific productivity on a sample of 840 respondents, half the young scientific population in Croatia. In the last decade gender differences in the scientific productivity of young researchers have increased, which may be the result of introducing a more competitive scientific system. Young female researchers publish an average of two scientific papers less than their male counterparts in five years, and their publications reach 70.6% of males" publication productivity in the same period. In the case of both sexes, about 15% researchers publish about half of all research papers, but even the most productive women publish less than their male counterparts Socio-demographic, educational and qualificational predictors contribute more or less equally to the number of scientific publications by women and men. It is not until we introduce structural variables that a strong sex differentiation appears because these factors are much more powerful in explaining the production of women. They show that female scientists" publication productivity is more strongly influenced by their position in the social organization of science. There are also considerable sex differences in the case of individual productivity predictors. International contacts determine the number of papers by female scientists most of all. Attendance at scientific conferences abroad is the most powerful predictor of male productivity, too, but reviewing colleagues" papers and academic degree are also very important. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The publication productivity of international agricultural research centers

The literature output over one year, 1990, of 22 International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs), including 16 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centers, was examined. Total output of the IARCs was 1,694 items, of which on average 42% were primary (refereed) literature; 24% were reports and monographs; 18% proceedings papers; 8% book chapters; and 8% semitechnical/popular literature. Total literature production from the IARCs is similar in magnitude to that of FAO. There were 1,230 internationally recruited scientists in the IARCs, with an average annual productivity of 1.38 items per scientist, including 0.58 primary literature articles. There was no correlation between scientific productivity and numbers of scientists in a center. However, there was a significant positive correlation between scientific productivity and center budget, indicating higher efficiency in the larger centers. In view of the nature of IARCs' literature output, we argue that IARCs should reject the trend for scientists to be assessed only by citations in core primary literature; and that IARCs should set up an international standard, perhaps based on the present proportionality of types of their literature output in order to assess IARC individual scientists and the health of their institutional output.     

Analysis of publication and invention productivity in some Soviet academic institutions

Some peculiarities and tendencies of the productivity of publication and invention activities for a large group of academic institutions of different scientific type of the Ukrainian SSR conducting research in the field of natural and technical sciences have been revealed.     

Variables associated with agricultural scientists' work alienation and publication productivity

This study focuses on work alienation and publication productivity of agricultural scientists in two international research centers. Previous research has been criticized because the variables emphasized have typically been poorly correlated with publication productivity. Additionally, although work alienation of professionals has received considerable attention in the literature, seldom has it been included in empirical studies of publication productivity. Results indicate two perceptions of structure, centralization and formalization, are significantly correlated with work alienation, but less so with publication productivity. Work alienation is significantly, but modestly, correlated with publication productivity. In a multiple regression analysis, work alienation proved to be less important than perceived centralization. Implications for supervisors of scientific staffs include reducing the layers of hierarchy and empowering staff by giving them a voice in research goals and organizational operations.     

International differences of productivity in scholarly management knowledge

Using a dataset of refereed conference papers, this work explores the determinants of academic production in the field of management. The estimation of a count data model shows that the countries’ level of economic development and their economy size have a positive and highly significant effect on scholarly management knowledge production. The linguistic variable (English as official language), which has been cited by the literature as an important factor facilitating the participation in the international scientific arena, has also a positive and statistically significant effect.     

Science publication indicators for India: Questions of interpretation

We comment on a letter toNature in 1996 on the long term decline of Indian science pointing out methodological reasons why the (SCI) data used by the authors do not unambiguously lead to their stated conclusions. Our arguments are based on the contention that no valid statement on change in a country's output may be made for a period in which the journal coverage from that country in SCI has changed significantly. We have suggested that for longitudinal comparisons of country level performance, it should be verified that the journals from that country in SCI remained constant within the period. This could be ensured if the country of publication of journals could be included as a field in the SCI database. We define a Visibility Index as the cumulated impact and derive a relation to estimate change in visibility combining changes in output and average impact. In the period during which Indian journal coverage remained unchanged, a detailed analysis of output for two years (1990–94) leads us to conclude that, with the exception of Agriculture, there has been an increase in publication in virtually every field, with significant increase in the overall mean Impact Factor. At least 25 subfields have been identified with statistically significant increase in mean Impact Factor and Visibility. The impact of foreign collaboration on visibility has also been considered. In conclusion we touch upon the question of citation as a performance indicator for Third World countries as high citation and relevance may be in conflict as objectives.     

Nobel laureates: Their publication productivity,collaboration and authorship status

Summary The application of the measurement of scientific and technical activities has been a lengthy process of the appropriate metrics and the assignment of the standards and benchmarks for their usage. Although some studies have addressed issues of the management of science and technology and their relation to scientometrics and infometrics, there is nevertheless a need to consider the linkages between the conceptual background of scientific generation and progress - and the measurement of its process and outcomes. This paper first reviews the three main approaches to the generation and progress of human knowledge in general and scientific activity in particular. These approaches are reviewed in terms of the demands they would make on the measurement of scientific process and outputs. The paper then examines the currently used categories of metrics, and arrives at several conclusions. The paper provides an analysis of these conclusions and their implications to the generation and utilization of metrics of science and its outcomes. The review of the conceptual or philosophical foundations for the measurement of science offers an in-depth examination, resulting in the correlation of these foundations with the metrics we now use to measure science and its outcomes. The paper suggests research directions for a much needed link between theories of science and knowledge, and the application of metrics used to measure them. Finally, the paper offers several hypotheses and proposes potential empirical studies.     

Gender,web presence and scientific productivity in nanoscience and nanotechnology

Digital and scientific realms are commonly believed to be gendered. The wide pervasiveness of e-science may result in an interaction between the scientific and digital gender divides, increasing the disparities against women. Selecting web-presence as a manifestation of web activity, and applying a quasi-experimental scientometric method, the present study aims to investigate the effects of the interaction, if any, on web-present females and males compared to web-absent ones in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. The results show that the web-present Nanoscientists are not necessarily superior in their scientific production, though they are higher in their recognition. The web-present females and males are equal in their numbers and productions. Although the female web-present are found to be equal in their recognition to their male counterparts, there is a significant difference between the web-present and web-absent males in this regard, signifying the higher impact of the web on males’ recognition.     

The three cultures in American science: publication productivity in physics,history and economics

Scientometrics - In 1959 Lord Charles Percy Snow delivered a scathing critique of the bifurcation of scientists into two cultures: The humanists and the natural scientists. Five decades later,...     

Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research

Scientometrics - This study uses mixed methods—classical citation analysis, altmetric analysis, a survey with researchers as respondents, and text analysis of the abstracts of scientific...     

Gender differences in psychosocial predictors of texting while driving

A sample of 158 male and 357 female college students at a midwestern university participated in an on-line study of psychosocial motives for texting while driving. Men and women did not differ in self-reported ratings of how often they texted while driving. However, more women sent texts of less than a sentence while more men sent texts of 1–5 sentences. More women than men said they would quit texting while driving due to police warnings, receiving information about texting dangers, being shown graphic pictures of texting accidents, and being in a car accident. A hierarchical regression for men’s data revealed that lower levels of feeling distracted by texting while driving (20% of the variance), higher levels of cell phone dependence (11.5% of the variance), risky behavioral tendencies (6.5% of the variance) and impulsivity (2.3%) of the variance) were significantly associated with more texting while driving (total model variance = 42%). A separate regression for women revealed that higher levels of cell phone dependence (10.4% of the variance), risky behavioral tendencies (9.9% of the variance), texting distractibility (6.2%), crash risk estimates (2.2% of the variance) and driving confidence (1.3% of the variance) were significantly associated with more texting while driving (total model variance = 31%.) Friendship potential and need for intimacy were not related to men’s or women’s texting while driving. Implications of the results for gender-specific prevention strategies are discussed.     

The publication trajectory of graduate students,post-doctoral fellows,and new professors in psychology

Scientometrics - Each year as the number of graduate students in psychology increases, there is also increased competition for academic positions. The general consensus is that there is higher...     

Research productivity in education and psychology in the Philippines and comparison with ASEAN countries

An objective assessment using bibliometric indicators of research productivity in education and psychology in the Philippines was conducted. Results were then benchmarked against its Southeast Asian neighbors’ research productivity in the same fields. Results showed that the Philippines ranked low in research productivity compared to Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia, particularly starting in the 1990s. Only a few researchers, mainly coming from a small number of higher education institutions, were publishing papers on a regular basis in a small range of journals. Those journals had either no or low impact factors and most papers had low citation counts. It also collaborated less with domestic and international institutions. This low research productivity was explained in terms of economic indicators, the local orientation of many social science research studies, funding, individual characteristics of researchers, and the epistemic culture of knowledge production in the country. However, the reforms initiated by the government, particularly in the higher education sector, would hopefully lead to a better research landscape and, consequently, improved research productivity in the near future.     

The international publication productivity of Latin American countries in the economics and business administration fields

The present study compares the international publication productivityof Latin American countries in the fields of business administration and economicsfrom 1995 to 1999. Only four countries – Argentina, Brazil, Chile, andMexico – have a substantial research production in these areas. Amongthese countries, Chile showed the most favorable results according to variousindicators of publication productivity. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Gender differences among older drivers in a comprehensive driving evaluation

Research studies typically consider older drivers as a homogenous group and do not report on the influence of gender on driving performance. Prior studies report that females are over-represented in crashes compared to males, caused by errors of yielding, gap acceptance, and speed regulation, all of which are assessed in a comprehensive driving evaluation (CDE). In a sample of 294 community dwelling older drivers, we examined and compared specific and total driving errors of both genders, and determined predictors of gender-specific driving errors and pass/fail outcomes who completed a CDE assessed by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist. No differences in specific or total number of driving errors on the CDE were found between older males (Mean age 73.4 ± 6.0) and older females (Mean age 73.8 ± 5.7). Education, days of driving, Useful Field of View™ (UFOV), Rapid Paced Walk Test (RPW) and the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) were all independent predictors of failing a road test for both genders (p < 0.05). However, older females were 22% less likely than older males to fail an on-road test. Within group comparisons showed that older males and females >75 years were 3.2 and 3.5 times more likely to fail the on-road test compared to younger males and females (aged between 63 and 75), respectively. Our findings suggest that focusing on older old (75+) and old–old (85+) age groups may be more efficient for future investigations of driving performance.     

Gender differences among first authors in research focused on the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality

Scientometrics - In 2016, the United Nations officially launched the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to address urgent global challenges over the next 15&nbsp;years. Among...     

Gender differences in injury severity risks in crashes at signalized intersections

This paper analyzes gender differences in crash risk severities using data for signalized intersections. It estimates gender models for injury severity risks and finds that driver condition, type of crash, type of vehicle driven and vehicle safety features have different effects on females’ and males’ injury severity risks. Also, it finds some variables which are significantly related to females’ injury severity risks but not males’ and others which affect males’ injury severity risks but not females’. It concludes that better and more in-depth information about gender differences in injury severity risks is gained by estimating separate models for females and males.