Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists' productivity

The empirical research on the sample of 385 eminent Croatian scientists was carried out in order to explore the patterns and factors of their scientific productivity. The study design made it possible to compare the results with those obtained in the 1990 survey on a sample of the research population. The average scientific productivity of eminent researchers is not only several times larger but also shows a more intensive scientific collaboration and orientation towards the international scientific arena. The most important predictors of the elite's productivity are also qualificational and organizational variables but of a more selective nature. By including the eminent scientists' gatekeeping roles, the explanation of their total, co-authored and foreign publications can be improved.     

The Publication Productivity of Young Scientists: An Empirical Study

This research was conducted on a sample of 840 respondents who represent half of the Croatian population of young scientists. There are three main features which define the publication productivity of young scientists. 1) Despite the worsened position of R & D, they publish more scientific papers than the young generations of scientists at the beginning of the nineties. 2) Differences between a highly-productive minority, which produces on average half of all scientific publications, and a low-productive majority is already apparent in young scientists. 3) The productivity of young scientists is formed according to productivity patterns typical of particular scientific fields and disciplines.With regard to the explanation of productivity, the following has been found. a) An expansion of the set of predictors resulted in an improvement in the explanation of the productivity of young scientists compared with previous surveys. b) Among the factors which contribute significantly to the explanation of the quantity of scientific publications, the most powerful predictor is attendance at conferences abroad, followed by scientific qualifications and some gatekeeping variables. c) Besides certain similarities, scientific fields also show a specific structure of determinants of young scientists' productivity.     

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.     

A multidimensional approach to academic productivity

This study represents one of the first attempts to use empirical analysis to estimate academic productivity complex and proves the thesis that academic productivity is a function of multidimensional combination of the work of academic researchers: the scientific work, education, and external relationships. Given the complexity of academic productivity, it is necessary to clarify that it is divided into scientific productivity of the first type (scientific publications); scientific productivity of the second type (awards and academic positions); productivity in terms of external relationships (or external advice); and educational productivity. This objective of this paper is achieved through a sample survey (2,738 academics responded) conducted by Italian researchers from the PIR research project. The results obtained, however (as a case of estimates obtained using the results of a sample survey), are the result of a working reality that Italian academics are flooded by a myriad of activities that are not always consistent with the primary aims of the work of a researcher with an organisational and environmental well-being at the limit of iper productivity (or hyper productivity). The overall productivity (academic productivity) is significantly correlated with the four dimensions: average annual scientific productivity of the first type, average annual scientific productivity of the second type, the productivity external advice and, lastly, teaching productivity. The estimate of the sizes for the four indicators of productivity are the result of a literature search of the primary techniques used to assess productivity in academia. By comparing the most significant indicators, we managed to select all of the technical aspects missing in the Italian system of evaluation. This process allowed for us to add additional variables characterising the various aspects of productivity and prove the validity of our theory about the multidimensionality of academic productivity.     

The socio-cognitive frameworks of scientific productivity

Empirical research carried out on a representative sample of 921 scientists from Croatia has shown that scientific fields are important socio-cognitive productivity framework. First, this can be seen in significantly different patterns of the average scientific productivity of researchers in different fields. Second, significant are the differences in the social organization of scientific fields, especially in the fragmentation and organization of the research process, which manifest themselves with a different engagement intensity of the respondents in each stage of the project. Finally, scientific productivity predictors are structured, ranging from significant ones in some fields, to those significant everywhere (qualifications and project roles).     

Researchers profile, co-authorship pattern and knowledge organization in information science in Brazil

This paper aimed to present the profile of the researchers, the pattern of scientific collaboration and the knowledge organization in the area of information science in Brazil. The study covered sex differences, skills by region and type of institution, academic formation, indicators of productivity, relations of co-authorship, interactions with other fields of knowledge, and sectors of application of the researches developed in the area. The survey, covering the period 2000–2010, was based on information from the curricula vitae of the researchers with Research Productivity Grant funded by a government agency and from the Directory of Research Group of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. The results revealed that the majority of the researchers are women, both in research and postgraduate; there is a significant regional asymmetry; the studies are concentrated in public universities; the papers are published mainly in national journals with open access; the scientific production follows the same pattern of the areas of humanities, social sciences, and linguistics, literature and arts; there is a tendency of increasing the incidence and extent of co-authored papers; there is interaction with other 20 areas of knowledge, which are directly or indirectly connected, forming a single component that comprises all of them; and ‘information and S&T management’ followed by ‘education’ are the main sectors of application of the studies developed by the Brazilian researchers. The study therefore showed an overview of this scientific community seeking to contribute to a better understanding of its characteristics and specificities.     

Six case studies of international collaboration in science

Summary This study, based on two empirical investigations undertaken in Croatia on samples of 320 eminent and 840 young researchers, shows a comparison between the professional values/norms of these groups (normative level of research ethics), as well as a comparison (of perceptions) about the frequency of ethically questionable and unacceptable behaviour of researchers in Croatian research institutions (behavioural level of ethos). Science ethics includes a core of cognitive and social standards about which there is relatively high consensus in both groups of researchers. Their cognitive standards correspond to epistemological realism with an accent on objective, reliable, measurable and precise new knowledge. Their basic social values include the broadest social responsibility, responsibility towards colleagues and students, and professionality in relation with funders and/or clients. Thus, research ethos is a combination of traditional cognitive norms and new socially-engaged values. However, research ethics is not a static or homogeneous set of professional values and norms. Young scientists value cognitive norms relating to basic research lower, but rank some cognitive standards more closely linked with applied empirical research higher. Considering the social dimensions of research ethics, young researchers rate traditional academic values of collegiality, communality and autonomy less important than do eminent scientists, but they hold professionalism and establishing research networks more important. As expected, cognitive and social values and norms are not strictly followed on the level of professional practice. In their everyday professional life eminent and young researchers experience particular questionable research practices that could harm research work and results, and impair collegial relations in science, more often than they encounter breaking social norms that harm or even threaten participants in and users of scientific professional work. Differences in perceiving the incidence of certain kinds of questionable behaviour between the eminent and the young may be attributed to their different professional position and experience.     

What do the scientists think about the impact factor?

The impact factor is a highly polemic metric. It was designed to help scientists in searching for bibliographic references for their own works, enabling communication among researchers and helping librarians in deciding which journal they should purchase. Nevertheless, it has soon become the most important measure of scientific performance applied to journals, articles, scientists, universities, etc. Since then, some researchers argue that it is a useless and flawed measure, while others defend its utility. The current study is the first survey on the opinion on the topic of a broad sample of scientists from all over the world. The questionnaire was answered by 1,704 researchers from 86 different countries, all the continents and all the UNESCO major fields of knowledge. The results show that the opinion is slightly above the median which could be understood as ??neither positive nor negative??. Surprisingly, there is a negative correlation between the number of articles published by the respondents and their opinion on the impact factor.     

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.     

Research productivity of scientists in consolidated vs. non-consolidated teams: The case of Spanish university geologists

We present some results of an evaluation of research performance of Spanish senior university researchers in Geology. We analyse to what extent productivity of individual researchers is influenced by the level of consolidation of the team they belong to. Methodology is based on the combination of a mail survey carried out among a defined set of researchers, and a bibliometric study of their scientific output. Differences among researchers have been investigated with regard to team size and composition, patterns of publication in domestic and foreign journals, productivity, co-authorship of papers, and impact of publications. Results indicate that not belonging to a research team represents a handicap at the time of publishing in top international journals. Researchers belonging to consolidated teams are more productive than their colleagues in non-consolidated teams, and these in turn more than individuals without team. Team size does not appear to be as important for scientific productivity as the number of researchers within the team that reached a stable job position. Analysis of the impact factor of journals has not revealed differences among researchers with regard to the visibility of their papers. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Scientific fields and eminent scientists' productivity patterns and factors

A questionnaire study of 385 eminent Croatian scientists has examined the quantity, patterns and factors of their scientific production in four different scientific fields. The findings confirm the thesis that the contextual influences will be even more expressed within this elite group than within the whole research population. Thus the respondents' scientific productivity much clearly shows the patterns typical for their scientific fields. The initial thesis is also supported by a very differentiated composition and the explanatory power of the productivity predictors in the observed fields. Yet, the scientific and linguistic qualifications, within a narrower predictors' block, and the involvement in the international scientific activity, in a broader one, were the most important productivity factors in most fields.     

Crossing the hurdle: the determinants of individual scientific performance

An original cross-sectional dataset referring to a medium-sized Italian university is implemented in order to analyze the determinants of scientific research production at individual level. The dataset includes 942 permanent researchers of various scientific sectors for a 3-year time-span (2008–2010). Three different indicators—based on the number of publications and/or citations—are considered as response variables. The corresponding distributions are highly skewed and display an excess of zero-valued observations. In this setting, the goodness-of-fit of several Poisson mixture regression models are explored by assuming an extensive set of explanatory variables. As to the personal observable characteristics of the researchers, the results emphasize the age effect and the gender productivity gap—as previously documented by existing studies. Analogously, the analysis confirms that productivity is strongly affected by the publication and citation practices adopted in different scientific disciplines. The empirical evidence on the connection between teaching and research activities suggests that no univocal substitution or complementarity thesis can be claimed: a major teaching load does not affect the odds to be a non-active researcher and does not significantly reduce the number of publications for active researchers. In addition, new evidence emerges on the effect of researchers administrative tasks—which seem to be negatively related with researcher’s productivity—and on the composition of departments. Researchers’ productivity is apparently enhanced by operating in department filled with more administrative and technical staff, and it is not significantly affected by the composition of the department in terms of senior/junior researchers.     

Publication productivity and collaboration of researchers in South Africa: new empirical evidence

Apart from a few bibliometrical studies the South African scientific system is a scantly researched area and asking for more empirical evidence. This empirical study of academics and researchers (n = 204) from a selected province of South Africa examines the interrelationship between publication productivity and collaboration, and the sectoral differences between higher education institutions and research institutes. The study highlights the specific context of the scientific system in South Africa with its characteristics features of productivity and collaboration and shows how they are structurally facilitated and hindered. Being a prominent contributor to the development of science in Africa the study offers some interesting findings.     

Determinants of research productivity

Earlier researchers like Turkeli, suggested that ‘the factors which determine the productivity of scientists are admittedly complex and perhaps not amenable to real scientific analysis′. The present investigation was designed with the sole purpose of confronting such a complex problem. Nearly 200 variables influencing research productivity were collected through relevant literature, analysis of biographies of great scientists, and discussion with eminent scientists. Finally, through a critical examination, 80 variables were selected for the use of Q-sort technique. The sample for the study consisted of a cross section of scientists ranging from Fellows of Indian National Science Academy to young agricultural scientists. Mailed questionnaires and personal interview methods were used for collecting data. Out of a total of 912 respondents, reply was obtained from 325. On the basis of Q-sorted data, 26 variables were selected for further analysis and they were subjected to principal component factor analysis. The results indicated eleven factors affecting research productivity of scientists. They were: persistence, resource adequacy, access to literature, initiative, intelligence, creativity, learning capability, stimulative leadership, concern for advancement, external orientation, and professional commitment.     

Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology

Science is principally driven by the efforts of a vanishingly small fraction of researchers publishing the majority of scientific research and garnering the majority of citations. Despite this well-established trend, knowledge of exactly how many articles these researchers publish, how highly they are cited, and how they achieved their distinctive accomplishments is meager. This article examines the publication and citation patterns of the world’s most highly cited environmental scientists and ecologists, inquiring into their levels of scientific productivity and visibility, examining relationships between scientific productivity and quality within their research programs, and considering how different publication strategies contribute to these distinctive successes. Generally speaking, highly cited researchers are also highly productive, publishing on average well over 100 articles each. Furthermore, articles published by this group are more highly cited on average than articles published in premier generalist journal like Nature and Science, and their citation to publication ratios are more equitably distributed than is typical. Research specialization and primacy of authorship are important determinants of citation frequency, while geographic differences and collaborative propensity matter less. The article closes with a set of suggestions for those wishing to increase the use of their research by the scientific community.     

Research production in the arts and humanities

This study explored the main factors influencing the research production in the arts and humanities. A questionnaire was constructed to identify and assess the effects of various factors important for the productivity of the individual researcher as reflected in the number of papers and Ph.D.'s produced. First, respondents were given the opportunity to list in their own words a number of important factors influencing research productivity. Secondly, they evaluated on rating scales the importance of a number of pre-selected factors (e.g. individual characteristics, organisational features, external factors) assumed to be important for research productivity. 50% of a sample of 256 researchers in the humanities responded. Ratings were grouped to produce a number of indices and these were subject to multiple regression analyses. The main results showed that the production of papers was predicted by the number of Ph.D.'s produced and inversely related to the importance of organisational factors. The production of Ph.D.'s was dependent on the year of the Ph.D. and the position of the respondent as well as on the number of papers s/he produced. A number of conclusions were drawn: a) there was support for the academic social position effect also in the humanities; b) organisational factors apparently played a minor role in comparison to individual characteristics in the humanities than in the sciences and; c) the differences in productivity of papers were also related to gender, but not to size, area or language of publications. Implications for further studies were suggested.This work was supported by a grant from the Council for Studies of Higher Education and finished while the first author was a Visiting Research Fellow at SPRU, University of Sussex, 1995. I wish to thankBen R. Martin, SPRU, University of Sussex andAnton Nederhof, CWTS, Leiden University for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper which was presented at the workshop Studies on the Arts and Humanities and the Social Sciences, at SPRU, University of Sussex, 30 May, 1995.     

University-Based Engineering Research in the United States

This paper reports results from an NSF-supported survey of a national probability sample of U.S. engineering faculty on the nature and organization of their research activities. We analyze how engineering faculty spend their time, the types of research faculty conduct, characteristics of that research, how that research has changed over time, and the involvement of students in engineering research, based upon the engineering discipline, institutional research intensiveness and age of the respondents. These data and results represent a perspective on university-based engineering research activities from the point of view of active researchers across most of the engineering schools in the United States.     

The value of an overseas research trip

As an essential part of the academic environment, international scientific mobility draws considerable attention from researchers. Previous studies have indicated a strong relationship between scientific mobility and scientific output. However, few researchers have addressed the causality between them. The research questions in this study focused on how the international scientific mobilization of the researchers affects their number of international collaborations, their ability to get published at higher impact factor journals, the number of citations that they get. Based on the SCOPUS database of English language scientific journal articles, this paper revealed the causal effects of international scientific mobility of the researchers on their scientific productivity, collaborations, and impact on science using the synthetic control method. The author’s affiliation on their articles provided the geographical location that can be tracked in time to infer the international scientific mobility of each author. A sample of more than 79,000 immobile scientists was used to create the synthetic versions of over 1500 internationally mobile scientists, so that, the synthetic version of each mobile author best resembled the academic ability of her/his counterpart mobile author in the pre-mobilization period. This allowed investigating the effects of the international mobilization on their publications by comparing the post-mobilization publication characteristics of the mobile authors and their immobile synthetic controls.The findings show strong evidence of a substantial positive effect of scientific mobility on the ability to get published in more prestigious journals, the number of citations received in total and from overseas, and international collaborations. The magnitude of the effect is conditional on the duration of scientific mobility.

     

Are there scale economies in scientific production? On the topic of locally increasing returns to scale

In this paper the question of returns to scale in scientific production is analysed using non-parametric techniques of multidimensional efficiency measurement. Based on survey data for German research groups from three scientific fields, it is shown that the multidimensional production possibility sets are weakly non-convex and locally strictly non-convex. This suggests that the production functions for the groups in the sample are characterised by increasing returns to scale in some regions and at least constant returns to scale otherwise. This has two implications for the organisation of scientific research: first, the size of at least some groups in our sample is suboptimal and they would benefit from growth. Second, greater specialisation in certain tasks in science (e.g. transfer-oriented groups vs. research-oriented groups) would increase the output of the overall system.     

Dynamics of the modern Venezuelan research community profile

Summary The main characteristics, human resources, organizational development, R&D output and outcome of the Venezuelan scientific and technological community, are studied in depth for three specific dates - years 1954, 1983 and 1999 -, aiming to reveal its strengths and weaknesses and to establish its dynamics. During the first half of the twentieth century, Venezuela had no major organized or institutionalized scientific activity. From 1954 thru 1983, the State built a considerable number of institutions mostly for research and development activities. Initially, researchers came from classical professions but were later substituted by graduates in scientific and technological disciplines. Biomedical and basic sciences are the areas of knowledge favored by researchers while, in terms of intellectual creation, social sciences and humanities seem to be the less productive, despite being one of the fields of knowledge embraced by most professionals. Although from 1983 on there has been no major input to the national S&T system, the research community showed a few years of growth in absolute terms in the number of publications, however national productivity decreased during the last decade of the century. It is believed that this reflects an aging, asphyxiated and self-consuming community using its reserves at a maximum rate. The S&T system constructed exhibits a dominance of the public sector that privileged, financially, the hydrocarbon related technological/service industry at the expense of academic research in universities while maintaining agribusiness related service and developmental research at the same level of expenditure throughout the last twenty years of the twentieth century. While the generation - practically from zero - of a modern R&D community in Venezuela, together with higher education, could well be one of the most significant accomplishments of democracy in Venezuela, this remarkable social achievement has been put in peril by neglect and changes in public policies. Downturn of the national S&T system is bound to worsen due to a virtual collapse, on February 4, 2002, of the R&D centre of the nationalized oil industry.