Statistical evaluation of research performance of young university scholars: A case study

The research performance of a small group of 49 young scholars, such as doctoral students, postdoctoral and junior researchers, working in different technical and scientific fields, was evaluated based on 11 types of research outputs. The scholars worked at a technical university in the fields of Civil Engineering, Ecology, Economics, Informatics, Materials Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Safety Engineering. Principal Component Analysis was used to statistically analyze the research outputs and its results were compared with factor and cluster analysis. The metrics of research productivity describing the types of research outputs included the number of papers, books and chapters published in books, the number of patents, utility models and function samples, and the number of research projects conducted. The metrics of citation impact included the number of citations and h-index. From these metrics -the variables -the principal component analysis extracted 4 main principal components. The 1st principal component characterized the cited publications in high-impact journals indexed by the Web of Science. The 2nd principal component represented the outputs of applied research and the 3rd and 4th principal components represented other kinds of publications. The results of the principal component analysis were compared with the hierarchical clustering using Ward's method. The scatter plots of the principal component analysis and the Mahalanobis distances were calculated from the 4 main principal component scores, which allowed us to statistically evaluate the research performance of individual scholars. Using variance analysis, no influence of the field of research on the overall research performance was found. Unlike the statistical analysis of individual research metrics, the approach based on the principal component analysis can provide a complex view of the research systems.Web of Science30217716

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

On the shoulders of students? The contribution of PhD students to the advancement of knowledge

Using the participation in peer reviewed publications of all doctoral students in Quebec over the 2000-2007 period this paper provides the first large scale analysis of their research effort. It shows that PhD students contribute to about a third of the publication output of the province, with doctoral students in the natural and medical sciences being present in a higher proportion of papers published than their colleagues of the social sciences and humanities. Collaboration is an important component of this socialization: disciplines in which student collaboration is higher are also those in which doctoral students are the most involved in peer-reviewed publications. In terms of scientific impact, papers co-signed by doctorate students obtain significantly lower citation rates than other Quebec papers, except in natural sciences and engineering. Finally, this paper shows that involving doctoral students in publications is positively linked with degree completion and ulterior career in research.Comment: 41 pages, 7 figures, forthcoming in Scientometric

Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers

Scientists are frequently faced with the important decision to start or terminate a creative partnership. This process can be influenced by strategic motivations, as early career researchers are pursuers, whereas senior researchers are typically attractors, of new collaborative opportunities. Focusing on the longitudinal aspects of scientific collaboration, we analyzed 473 collaboration profiles using an ego-centric perspective which accounts for researcher-specific characteristics and provides insight into a range of topics, from career achievement and sustainability to team dynamics and efficiency. From more than 166,000 collaboration records, we quantify the frequency distributions of collaboration duration and tie-strength, showing that collaboration networks are dominated by weak ties characterized by high turnover rates. We use analytic extreme-value thresholds to identify a new class of indispensable `super ties', the strongest of which commonly exhibit >50% publication overlap with the central scientist. The prevalence of super ties suggests that they arise from career strategies based upon cost, risk, and reward sharing and complementary skill matching. We then use a combination of descriptive and panel regression methods to compare the subset of publications coauthored with a super tie to the subset without one, controlling for pertinent features such as career age, prestige, team size, and prior group experience. We find that super ties contribute to above-average productivity and a 17% citation increase per publication, thus identifying these partnerships - the analog of life partners - as a major factor in science career development.Comment: 13 pages, 5 figures, 1 Tabl

A bibliometric analysis of Australia's international research collaboration in science and technology: analytical methods and initial findings

This paper presents the initial findings from an exploratory bibliometric analysis of Australia's international collaboration in science and technology. This paper is focusses on: (a) Assessing the methodological challenges faced in comprehensively mapping Australia's science and technology research activity from an international engagement perspective; (b) Suggesting solutions to these challenges; (c) Providing some policy-relevant findings of potential use to the Australian Government and the European Commission

Learning more from crossing levels: Investigating agility at three levels of the organization

Scholars have tried to explain how organizations can build agile teams by only looking at one level of analysis. We argue in this short paper that lessons can be learned from organizational science results explaining variance on three different abstraction levels of organizations. We suggest agility needs to be explained from organizational (macro), the team (meso), and individual (micro) levels to provide useful and actionable guidelines to practitioners. We are currently designing such studies and hope that they will eventually result in validated measurements that can be used to prevent companies from investing in the wrong areas when trying to move towards more agility