Authorship analysis of specialized vs diversified research output

The present work investigates the relations between amplitude and type of collaboration (intramural, extramural domestic or international) and output of specialized versus diversified research. By specialized or diversified research, we mean within or beyond the author's dominant research topic. The field of observation is the scientific production over five years from about 23,500 academics. The analyses are conducted at the aggregate and disciplinary level. The results lead to the conclusion that in general, the output of diversified research is no more frequently the fruit of collaboration than is specialized research. At the level of the particular collaboration types, international collaborations weakly underlie the specialized kind of research output; on the contrary, extramural domestic and intramural collaborations are weakly associated with diversified research. While the weakness of association remains, exceptions are observed at the level of the individual disciplines

The effect of multidisciplinary collaborations on research diversification

This work verifies whether research diversification by a scientist is in some measure related to their collaboration with multidisciplinary teams. The analysis considers the publications achieved by 5300 Italian academics in the sciences over the period 2004-2008. The findings show that a scientist's outputs resulting from research diversification are more often than not the result of collaborations with multidisciplinary teams. The effect becomes more pronounced with larger and particularly with more diversified teams. This phenomenon is observed both at the overall level and for the disciplinary macro-areas

TECHNOLOGIES AND LOCALIZED TECHNICAL CHANGE

Heterogenous Technologies, Transformation Function, Localized Technical Change, Production Economics, Research Methods/ Statistical Methods, Q12, O33, C35,

Distinguishing Different Industry Technologies and Localized Technical Change

This contribution is based on the notion that different technologies are present in an industry. These different technologies result in differential “drivers” of economic performance depending on the kind of technology used by the individual firm. In a first step different technologies are empirically distinguished. Subsequently, the associated production patterns are approximated and the respective change over time is estimated. A latent class modelling approach is used to distinguish different technologies for a representative sample of E.U. dairy producers as an industry exhibiting significant structural changes and differences in production systems in the past decades. The production technology is modelled and evaluated by using the flexible functional form of a transformation function and measures of first- and second-order elasticities. We find that overall (average) measures do not well reflect individual firms’ production patterns if the technology of an industry is heterogeneous. If there is more than one type of production frontier embodied in the data, it should be recognized that different firms may exhibit very different output or input intensities and changes associated with different production systems. In particular, in the context of localized technical change, firms with different technologies can be expected to show different technical change patterns, both in terms of overall magnitudes and associated relative output and input mix changes. Assuming a homogenous technology would result in inefficient policy recommendations leading to suboptimal industry outcomes.Heterogenous Technologies, Transformation Function, Localized Technical Change, Production Economics, Q12, O33, C35,

Game of Tenure: the role of “hidden” citations on researchers’ ranking in Ecology

Field ecologists and macroecologists often compete for the same grants and academic positions, with the former producing primary data that the latter generally use for model parameterization. Primary data are usually cited only in the supplementary materials, thereby not counting formally as citations, creating a system where field ecologists are routinely under-acknowledged and possibly disadvantaged in the race for funding and positions. Here, we explored how the performance of authors producing novel ecological data would change if all the citations to their work would be accounted for by bibliometric indicators. We collected the track record of >2300 authors from Google Scholar and citation data from 600 papers published in 40 ecology journals, including field-based, conservation, general ecology, and macroecology studies. Then we parameterized a simulation that mimics the current publishing system for ecologists and assessed author rankings based on number of citations, H-Index, Impact Factor, and number of publications under a scenario where supplementary citations count. We found weak evidence for field ecologists being lower ranked than macroecologists or general ecologists, with publication rate being the main predictor of author performance. Current ranking dynamics were largely unaffected by supplementary citations as they are 10 times less than the number of main text citations. This is further exacerbated by the common practice of citing datasets assembled by previous research or data papers instead of the original articles. While accounting for supplementary citations does not appear to offer a solution, researcher performance evaluations should include criteria that better capture authors’ contribution of new, publicly available data. This could encourage field ecologists to collect and store new data in a systematic manner, thereby mitigating the data patchiness and bias in macroecology studies, and further accelerating the advancement of ecology and related areas of biogeography

The latent structure of global scientific development

Science is essential to innovation and economic prosperity. Although studies have shown that national scientific development is affected by geographic, historic, and economic factors, it remains unclear whether there are universal structures and trajectories of national scientific development that can inform forecasting and policymaking. Here, by examining countries' scientific 'exports'-publications that are indexed in international databases-we reveal a three-cluster structure in the relatedness network of disciplines that underpin national scientific development and the organization of global science. Tracing the evolution of national research portfolios reveals that while nations are proceeding to more diverse research profiles individually, scientific production is increasingly specialized in global science over the past decades. By uncovering the underlying structure of scientific development and connecting it with economic development, our results may offer a new perspective on the evolution of global science.Comment: 30 pages(main text), 5 figures(main text), 3 tables(main text

Mapping the Evolution of "Clusters": A Meta-analysis

This paper presents a meta-analysis of the “cluster literature” contained in scientific journals from 1969 to 2007. Thanks to an original database we study the evolution of a stream of literature which focuses on a research object which is both a theoretical puzzle and an empirical widespread evidence. We identify different growth stages, from take-off to development and maturity. We test the existence of a life-cycle within the authorships and we discover the existence of a substitutability relation between different collaborative behaviours. We study the relationships between a “spatial” and an “industrial” approach within the textual corpus of cluster literature and we show the existence of a “predatory” interaction. We detect the relevance of clustering behaviours in the location of authors working on clusters and in measuring the influence of geographical distance in co-authorship. We measure the extent of a convergence process of the vocabulary of scientists working on clusters.Cluster, Life-Cycle, Cluster Literature, Textual Analysis, Agglomeration, Co-Authorship

Co-authorship trends in the field of management : facts and perceptions

We explore the perceptions, preferences, and motivations that contribute to a widely recognized phenomenon: the continuous rise of coauthorship within the field of management. Using data from Web of Science, we first confirm that the average number of authors on published papers has steadily and continuously increased over the last 4 decades and compare this trend across subfields and journals. We also conduct a survey, asking management researchers about their perceptions of coauthorship trends and their reactions to specific authorship scenarios. Comparing the “facts” and the “perceptions” of coauthorship, we suggest that the increase in coauthorship in management reflects not only quality considerations and the need for collaborations, but also instrumental motivations. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for the processes of peer evaluation and education in management