How long do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region, gender and discipline: evidence from Italy

We investigate the question of how long top scientists retain their stardom. We observe the research performance of all Italian professors in the sciences over three consecutive four-year periods, between 2001 and 2012. The top scientists of the first period are identified on the basis of research productivity, and their performance is then tracked through time. The analyses demonstrate that more than a third of the nation's top scientists maintain this status over the three consecutive periods, with higher shares occurring in the life sciences and lower ones in engineering. Compared to males, females are less likely to maintain top status. There are also regional differences, among which top status is less likely to survive in southern Italy than in the north. Finally we investigate the longevity of unproductive professors, and then check whether the career progress of the top and unproductive scientists is aligned with their respective performances. The results appear to have implications for national policies on academic recruitment and advancement

Croatian social scientists’ productivity and a bibliometric study of sociologists’ output

According to (pseudo)longitudinal empirical studies, the publication productivity of Croatian social scientists has been following the main global trends, especially the increase in co-authored and international/foreign publications. However, it shows more similarities to the social science output of other post-socialist countries than to the techno-scientifically developed European regions. The most recent bibliometric study of sociologists’ publication productivity offers a more detailed picture of social science publication practices, as well as a specific disciplinary culture. Books form an essential part of sociological and SS&H output and thus they should also be included in any system of research productivity monitoring and evaluation. Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS) bibliographical and citation data bases differ in covering sociological publications (especially books), which results in considerably different indicators of the quantity and visibility of published output. Empirical typology of visibility of sociologists’ publications detects the difference between article and book visibility, as well as local and international visibility combined with WoS and GS coverage. The predictors of visibility types suggest that increasing the impact of Croatian sociological research should be based on stimulating publication by sociologists in both international books and journals. (IN CROATIAN: Prema (pseudo)longitudinalnim empirijskim studijama, znanstvena produktivnost hrvatskih društvoznanstvenika prati glavne globalne trendove, posebno porast koautorskih i međunarodnih/stranih publikacija. No, ona pokazuje više sličnosti s autputom društvenih znanosti drugih postsocijalističkih država nego sa znanstveno-tehnološki razvijenim evropskim regijama. Najnovije bibliometrijsko istraživanje sociološke znanstvene produktivnosti nudi detaljniju sliku objavljivačkih praksi društvenih znanosti, kao i sliku jedne specifične disciplinarne kulture. Knjige čine esencijalni dio sociološke i društveno-humanističke produkcije, te bi stoga trebale biti uključene u svaki sustav praćenja i vrednovanja znanstvene produktivnosti. Web of Science (WoS) i Google Scholar (GS) baze razlikuju se u obuhvatu socioloških publikacija (posebno knjiga) što rezultira značajno različitim pokazateljima brojnosti i vidljivosti objavljene produkcije. Empirijska tipologija vidljivosti socioloških publikacija otkriva razliku između odjeka članaka i knjiga, kao i lokalne i međunarodne vidljivosti u kombinaciji s WoS i GS obuhvatom. Prediktori tipova vidljivosti sugeriraju da bi povećanje odjeka hrvatskih socioloških istraživanja trebalo temeljiti na poticanju sociologa na objavljivanje u inozemnim knjigama i časopisima.

'Getting out of the closet': Scientific authorship of literary fiction and knowledge transfer

Some scientists write literary fiction books in their spare time. If these books contain scientific knowledge, literary fiction becomes a mechanism of knowledge transfer. In this case, we could conceptualize literary fiction as non-formal knowledge transfer. We model knowledge transfer via literary fiction as a function of the type of scientist (academic or non-academic) and his/her scientific field. Academic scientists are those employed in academia and public research organizations whereas non-academic scientists are those with a scientific background employed in other sectors. We also distinguish between direct knowledge transfer (the book includes the scientist's research topics), indirect knowledge transfer (scientific authors talk about their research with cultural agents) and reverse knowledge transfer (cultural agents give scientists ideas for future research). Through mixed-methods research and a sample from Spain, we find that scientific authorship accounts for a considerable percentage of all literary fiction authorship. Academic scientists do not transfer knowledge directly so often as non-academic scientists, but the former engage into indirect and reverse transfer knowledge more often than the latter. Scientists from History stand out in direct knowledge transfer. We draw propositions about the role of the academic logic and scientific field on knowledge transfer via literary fiction. We advance some tentative conclusions regarding the consideration of scientific authorship of literary fiction as a valuable knowledge transfer mechanism.Comment: Paper published in Journal of Technology Transfe

Achieving scientific excellence: an exploratory study of the role of emotional and motivational factors

This study investigates the perceived role of psychological factors in achieving excellence in scientific research. Six outstanding scientists aged 33–42 were interviewed. Data were analyzed inductively resulting in three main dimensions: personality traits and characteristics, psychological skills and processes, and task-specific strategies. Researchers highlighted the importance of emotional factors and motivational processes to achieve and sustain scientific excellence. Flexible coping, emotion regulation, and goal setting were emphasized and described as particularly important in dealing with rejections, setbacks, and team management issues. Persistence and adaptive perfectionism were key individual characteristics which helped participants in nurturing and sustaining motivation. This study suggests that the specific impact of emotional, motivational, and other psychological skills at different stages of excellence development is relevant; yet, further investigation is needed.(QREN-POPH/FSE grant number SFRH/BD/30667/2006). This study was conducted at the Psychology Research Centre, University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministery of Education and Science through the National Strategic Reference Framework (QREN-POPH/FSE grant number SFRH/BD/30667/2006)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The Determinants of Faculty Patenting Behavior: Demographics or Opportunities?

We examine the individual, contextual, and institutional determinants of faculty patenting behavior in a panel dataset spanning the careers of 3,884 academic life scientists. Using a combination of discrete time hazard rate models and fixed effects logistic models, we find that patenting events are preceded by a flurry of publications, even holding constant time-invariant scientific talent and the latent patentability of a scientist's research. Moreover, the magnitude of the effect of this flurry is influenced by context --- such as the presence of coauthors who patent and the patent stock of the scientist's university. Whereas previous research emphasized that academic patenters are more accomplished on average than their non-patenting counterparts, our findings suggest that patenting behavior is also a function of scientific opportunities. This result has important implications for the public policy debate surrounding academic patenting.

Evidence of Competition in Research Activity among Economic Department using Spatial Econometric Techniques

Despite the prevalence of both competitive forces and patterns of collaboration within academic communities, studies on research productivity generally treat universities as independent entities. By exploring the research productivity of all academic economists employed at 81 universities and 17 economic research institutes in Austria, Germany, and German-speaking Switzerland, this study determines whether a research unit’s productivity depends on that of neighboring research units. The significant negative relationship that is found implies competition for priority of discovery among individual researchers, as well as the universities and research institutes that employ them. In addition, the empirical results support the hypotheses that collaboration and the existence of economies of scale increase research productivity.Research productivity, Competition, Collaboration, Negative spatial autocorrelation, Geo-referenced point data