Using text analysis to quantify the similarity and evolution of scientific disciplines

We use an information-theoretic measure of linguistic similarity to investigate the organization and evolution of scientific fields. An analysis of almost 20M papers from the past three decades reveals that the linguistic similarity is related but different from experts and citation-based classifications, leading to an improved view on the organization of science. A temporal analysis of the similarity of fields shows that some fields (e.g., computer science) are becoming increasingly central, but that on average the similarity between pairs has not changed in the last decades. This suggests that tendencies of convergence (e.g., multi-disciplinarity) and divergence (e.g., specialization) of disciplines are in balance.Comment: 9 pages, 4 figure

Publication counting methods for a national research evaluation exercise

This work was supported by the DIALOG Program (Grant name “Research into Excellence Patterns in Science and Art”) financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland.In this paper, we investigate the effects of using four methods of publication counting (complete, whole, fractional, square root fractional) and limiting the number of publications (at researcher and institution levels) on the results of a national research evaluation exercise across fields using Polish data. We use bibliographic information on 0.58 million publications from the 2013–2016 period. Our analysis reveals that the largest effects are in those fields within which a variety publication and cooperation patterns can be observed (e.g. in Physical sciences or History and archeology). We argue that selecting the publication counting method for national evaluation purposes needs to take into account the current situation in the given country in terms of the excellence of research outcomes, level of internal, external and international collaboration, and publication patterns in the various fields of sciences. Our findings show that the social sciences and humanities are not significantly influenced by the different publication counting methods and limiting the number of publications included in the evaluation, as publication patterns in these fields are quite different from those observed in the so-called hard sciences. When discussing the goals of any national research evaluation system, we should be aware that the ways of achieving these goals are closely related to the publication counting method, which can serve as incentives for certain publication practices

Analysis of National Public Research Funding (PREF) - Handbook for Data Collection and indicators production

This document presents the basic definition and methodology for the PREF data collection. It covers basic definitions of funding streams and funding instruments, the thematic classifications, characterization of research funding organizations and umbrella public research organizations. It also provides guidelines concerning the data structure, data collection process, data flagging and collection and management of metadata.JRC.B.7-Knowledge for Finance, Innovation and Growt

Accelerating transition to virtual research organisation in social science (AVROSS) : final report

This report is the fourth deliverable of the AVROSS study (Accelerating Transition to Virtual Research Organisation in Social Science, AVROSS). The study aims were to identify the requirements and options for accelerating the transition from traditional research to virtual research organisations through e-Infrastructures. The reason for this focus is that it is clear that "soft" sciences have both much to gain and a key role to play in promoting e-Infrastructure uptake across the disciplines, but to date have not been the fastest adopters of advanced grid-based e-Infrastructure. Our recommendations to EU policy-makers can be expected to point the way to changing this situation, promoting e-Infrastructure in Europe in these disciplines, with clear requirements to developers and expected impact in several other disciplines with related requirements, such as e-Health

Determinants of renewable and sustainable energy technologies acceptance: a comprehensive explanatory model for the biofuel case

The doctoral research aims to understand the acceptance of renewable and sustainable energy technology, specifically biofuel technology, by the general public and expert stakeholders. Study 1 identifies barriers and facilitators for biofuel acceptability through qualitative interviews with 32 EU stakeholders from various institutions and countries. The qualitative content analysis reveals four clusters of variables affecting biofuel acceptability. Study 2 builds an integrated model (i-SETA) for biofuel acceptance, incorporating psychological and contextual factors, tested on 807 laypeople from 8 EU countries. Study 3 validates the i-SETA model with 210 European expert stakeholders from four EU countries. The thesis provides valuable evidence-based concepts to promote biofuel acceptance and adoption

A brief analysis of the European funds for research and innovation : with focus on the H2020 Program

Desde a sua criação, que a expansão da União Europeia (UE), quer como entidade interveniente nas políticas dos Estados Membros, quer pela aceitação de mais Estados Membros, tem gerado dúvidas em relação à sua eficácia e às suas repercussões. A UE possui vários tipos de programas para promover maior coesão entre os Estados Membros e que assumem a forma de investimento público na generalidade dos sectores económico. Um dos sectores que tem adquirido maior relevância nos últimos anos é o da investigação e desenvolvimento, que a Comissão Europeia vê como crucial na sua estratégia de criação de uma economia baseada no conhecimento para a UE (European Commission, 2010). No presente trabalho, pretendemos fazer uma breve análise do 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7) e do Horizon 2020 Program (H2020) de forma a verificar se a aplicação destes programas foi capaz de atingir resultados satisfatórios em relação à quantidade de fundos atribuídos, qual foi o seu impacto geral na UE e se a maneira como foram desenhados e implementados foi bem sucedida no financiamento aos sectors de investigação e desenvolvimento na UE e nas SMEs. A nossa análise demonstra que estes programas, à data, falharam os seus máximos de financiamento no geral, criando uma diferença entre a quantidade de fundos disponíveis e a quantidade efectivamente distribuída. Demonstramos que o método para a distribuição destes fundos contribui para o aumento do ratio entre fundos recebidos e o número de participações por parte dos Estados Membros mais desenvolvidos. Isto cria um fluxo monetário inverso à concepção geral de que todos os programas da UE beneficiam os países economicamente mais fracos e periféricos. Nós concluímos que a Comissão Europeia deveria tentar reformular, não as prioridades dos programs, mas sim o método de distribuição dos fundos.Since its creation, that the European Union (EU) expansion, both as an intervening entity in the Member States policies and its acceptance of more Member States, has created doubts regarding its effectiveness and repercussion. The EU has several programs to promote the cohesion between all the EU Member States that assume the form of public investment in practically all the economic sectors. One sector that earned more relevance in recent years is the research and innovation, that the European Commission sees has crucial for its strategy of creating a knowledge-based economy in the EU (European Commission, 2010). In the present work, we intend to make a brief analysis of the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7) and the Horizon 2020 Program (H2020) in order to check if these Programs application was able to achieve satisfying results with the amount of funding they granted, what was the general impact across the EU and if their design succeeded in funding the research and innovation sectors across the EU and SMEs. Our analysis will find that both programs, to this date, missed their maximum available budgets in general, creating a gap between the funding they had access to and the amount of funding they ended up distributing. We demonstrate that the research and innovation sectors method for funding distribution contributes to the increase of the ratio between the granted funding versus total participations for the most developed Member States. This creates a flow of funding that is inverse to the general idea that all EU programs benefit the most peripherical and less developed Member States. We conclude that the European Commission should try to reformulate, not the Programs priorities, but their method of funding distribution