Knowledge Diffusion to Knowledge Dissemination: A Theoretical Study

The purpose of this study is to review the literature to identify the major breakthroughs in the process of knowledge diffusion and dissemination. This will help in ascertaining the future course of action for further research activities. The study was executed by a systematic review of literature available on the subject. About 138 documents were reviewed out of which more than 100 articles are from peer reviewed journals. Thematic search for literature was conducted using the terms like knowledge, knowledge diffusion, diffusion models, collaboration, Scientometrics. E-resources (Springer link, Emraldinsight, Oxford University Press, Jstor, etc., as subscribed the Tata Institute of Social Sciences was searched for literature. The core objectives are to understand the knowledge creation, theories and models of diffusion and dissemination, collaborative modes and quantitative aspects of knowledge diffusion. Based on the objectives following questions were answered that: a) How the knowledge is produced, b) Identification of knowledge diffusion models, c) Aspects of knowledge diffusion and d) The quantitative aspects of knowledge diffusion. The method of the systematic literature review was used to answer the research questions. The major milestone i.e. Theaetetus immortalized, SECI Model, Modes of Formation of Subjects, Diffusion of Innovations, The Epidemic Model, The Bass Diffusion Model, Research Collaboration and Team Science and Bibliometrics & Scientometrics quantitative methods are identified and described. However, this study may not be regarded to have a complete coverage of all the empirical literature on the subject. But, still, it seems to have reviewed the some of the pioneer studies

Assessing evaluation procedures for individual researchers: the case of the Italian National Scientific Qualification

The Italian National Scientific Qualification (ASN) was introduced as a prerequisite for applying for tenured associate or full professor positions at state-recognized universities. The ASN is meant to attest that an individual has reached a suitable level of scientific maturity to apply for professorship positions. A five member panel, appointed for each scientific discipline, is in charge of evaluating applicants by means of quantitative indicators of impact and productivity, and through an assessment of their research profile. Many concerns were raised on the appropriateness of the evaluation criteria, and in particular on the use of bibliometrics for the evaluation of individual researchers. Additional concerns were related to the perceived poor quality of the final evaluation reports. In this paper we assess the ASN in terms of appropriateness of the applied methodology, and the quality of the feedback provided to the applicants. We argue that the ASN is not fully compliant with the best practices for the use of bibliometric indicators for the evaluation of individual researchers; moreover, the quality of final reports varies considerably across the panels, suggesting that measures should be put in place to prevent sloppy practices in future ASN rounds

God (≡Elohim\equiv Elohim), the first small world network

In this paper, the approach of network mapping of words in literary texts is extended to ''textual factors'': the network nodes are defined as ''concepts''; the links are ''community connexions''. Thereafter, the text network properties are investigated along modern statistical physics approaches of networks, thereby relating network topology and algebraic properties, to literary texts contents. As a practical illustration, the first chapter of the Genesis in the Bible is mapped into a 10 node network, as in the Kabbalah approach, mentioning God ($\equiv Elohim$). The characteristics of the network are studied starting from its adjacency matrix, and the corresponding Laplacian matrix. Triplets of nodes are particularly examined in order to emphasize the ''textual (community) connexions'' of each agent "emanation", through the so called clustering coefficients and the overlap index, whence measuring the ''semantic flow'' between the different nodes. It is concluded that this graph is a small-world network, weakly dis-assortative, because its average local clustering coefficient is significantly higher than a random graph constructed on the same vertex set.Comment: 1 figure, 3 Tables, 69 references. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1004.524

Normalization of citation impact in economics

This study is intended to facilitate fair research evaluations in economics. Field- and time-normalization of citation impact is the standard method in bibliometrics. Since citation rates for journal papers differ substantially across publication years and Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) classification codes, citation rates should be normalized for the comparison of papers across different time periods and economic subfields. Without normalization, both factors that are independent of research quality bias the results of citation analyses. We introduce two normalized indicators in economics, which are the most important indicators in bibliometrics: (1) the mean normalized citation score (MNCS) compares the citation impact of a focal paper with the mean impact of similar papers published in the same economic subfield and publication year. (2) PPtop 50% is the share of papers that belong to the above-average half in a certain subfield and time period. Since the MNCS is based on arithmetic averages despite skewed citation distributions, we recommend using PPtop 50% for fair comparisons of entities in economics (e.g. researchers, institutions, or countries). In this study, we apply the method to 294 journals (including normalized scores for 192,524 papers) by assigning them to four citation impact classes and identifying 33 outstandingly cited economics journals

Altmetrics for Digital Libraries: Concepts, Applications, Evaluation, and Recommendations

The volume of scientific literature is rapidly increasing, which has led to researchers becoming overloaded by the number of articles that they have available for reading and difficulties in estimating their quality and relevance (e.g., based on their research interests). Library portals, in these circumstances, are increasingly getting more relevant by using quality indicators that can help researchers during their research discovery process. Several evaluation methods (e.g., citations, Journal Impact Factor, and peer-reviews) have been used and suggested by library portals to help researchers filter out the relevant articles (e.g., articles that have received high citations) for their needs. However, in some cases, these methods have been criticized, and a number of weaknesses have been identified and discussed. For example, citations usually take a long time to appear, and some articles that are important can remain uncited. With the growing presence of social media today, new alternative indicators, known as “altmetrics,” have been encountered and proposed as complementary indicators to traditional measures (i.e., bibliometrics). They can help to identify the online attention received by articles, which might act as a further indicator for research assessment. One often mentioned advantage of these alternative indicators is, for example, that they appear much faster compared to citations. A large number of studies have explored altmetrics for different disciplines, but few studies have reported about altmetrics in the fields of Economics and Business Studies. Furthermore, no studies can be found so far that analyzed altmetrics within these disciplines with respect to libraries and information overload. Thus, this thesis explores opportunities for introducing altmetrics as new method for filtering relevant articles (in library portals) within the discipline of Economic and Business Studies literature. To achieve this objective, we have worked on four main aspects of investigating altmetrics and altmetrics data, respectively, of which the results can be used to fill the gap in this field of research. (1) We first highlight to what extent altmetric information from the two altmetric providers Mendeley and Altmetric.com is present within the journals of Economics and Business Studies. Based on the coverage, we demonstrate that altmetrics data are sparse in these disciplines, and when considering altmetrics data for real-world applications (e.g., in libraries), higher aggregation levels, such as journal level, can overcome their sparsity well. (2) We perform and discuss the correlations of citations on article and journal levels between different types and sources of altmetrics. We could show that Mendeley counts are positive and strongly correlated with citation counts on both article and journal levels, whereas other indicators such as Twitter counts and Altmetric Attention Score are significantly correlated only on journal level. With these correlations, we could suggest Mendeley counts for Economic and Business Studies journals/articles as an alternative indicator to citations. (3) In conjunction with the findings related to altmetrics in Economics and Business Studies journals, we discuss three use cases derived from three ZBW personas in terms of altmetrics. We investigate the use of altmetrics data for potential users with interests in new trends, social media platforms and journal rankings. (4) We investigated the behavior of economic researchers using a survey by exploring the usefulness of different altmetrics on journal level while they make decisions for selecting one article for reading. According to the user evaluation results, we demonstrate that altmetrics are not well known and understood by the economic community. However, this does not mean that these indicators are not helpful at all to economists. Instead, it brings forward the problem of how to introduce altmetrics to the economic community in the right way using which characteristics (e.g., as visible numbers attached at library records or behind the library’s relevance ranking system). Considering the aforementioned findings of this thesis, we can suggest several forms of presenting altmetric information in library portals, using EconBiz as the proof-of-concept, with the intention to assist both researchers and libraries to identify relevant journals or articles (e.g., highly mentioned online and recently published) for their need and to cope with the information overload

Normalization of citation impact in economics

This study is intended to facilitate fair research evaluations in economics. Field- and time-normalization of citation impact is the standard method in bibliometrics. Since citation rates for journal papers differ substantially across publication years and Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) classification codes, citation rates should be normalized for the comparison of papers across different time periods and economic subfields. Without normalization, both factors that are independent of research quality bias the results of citation analyses. We introduce two normalized indicators in economics, which are the most important indicators in bibliometrics: (1) the mean normalized citation score (MNCS) compares the citation impact of a focal paper with the mean impact of similar papers published in the same economic subfield and publication year. (2) PPtop 50% is the share of papers that belong to the above-average half in a certain subfield and time period. Since the MNCS is based on arithmetic averages despite skewed citation distributions, we recommend using PPtop 50% for fair comparisons of entities in economics (e.g. researchers, institutions, or countries). In this study, we apply the method to 294 journals (including normalized scores for 192,524 papers) by assigning them to four citation impact classes and identifying 33 outstandingly cited economics journals