Congress UPV Proceedings of the 21ST International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators

This is the book of proceedings of the 21st Science and Technology Indicators Conference that took place in València (Spain) from 14th to 16th of September 2016. The conference theme for this year, ‘Peripheries, frontiers and beyond’ aimed to study the development and use of Science, Technology and Innovation indicators in spaces that have not been the focus of current indicator development, for example, in the Global South, or the Social Sciences and Humanities. The exploration to the margins and beyond proposed by the theme has brought to the STI Conference an interesting array of new contributors from a variety of fields and geographies. This year’s conference had a record 382 registered participants from 40 different countries, including 23 European, 9 American, 4 Asia-Pacific, 4 Africa and Near East. About 26% of participants came from outside of Europe. There were also many participants (17%) from organisations outside academia including governments (8%), businesses (5%), foundations (2%) and international organisations (2%). This is particularly important in a field that is practice-oriented. The chapters of the proceedings attest to the breadth of issues discussed. Infrastructure, benchmarking and use of innovation indicators, societal impact and mission oriented-research, mobility and careers, social sciences and the humanities, participation and culture, gender, and altmetrics, among others. We hope that the diversity of this Conference has fostered productive dialogues and synergistic ideas and made a contribution, small as it may be, to the development and use of indicators that, being more inclusive, will foster a more inclusive and fair world

No Deal: German Researchers' Publishing and Citing Behaviours after Big Deal Negotiations with Elsevier

In 2014, a union of German research organisations established Projekt DEAL, a national-level project to negotiate licensing agreements with large scientific publishers. Negotiations between DEAL and Elsevier began in 2016, and broke down without a successful agreement in 2018; in this time, around 200 German research institutions cancelled their license agreements with Elsevier, leading Elsevier to restrict journal access at those institutions. We investigated the effect on researchers' publishing and citing behaviours from a bibliometric perspective, using a dataset of ∼400,000 articles published by researchers at DEAL institutions between 2012-2020. We further investigated these effects with respect to the timing of contract cancellations, research disciplines, collaboration patterns, and article open-access status. We find evidence for a decrease in Elsevier’s market share of articles from DEAL institutions, with the largest year-on-year market share decreases occuring from 2018 to 2020 following the implementation of access restrictions. We also observe year-on-year decreases in the proportion of citations, although the decrease is smaller. We conclude that negotiations with Elsevier and access restrictions have led to some reduced willingness to publish in Elsevier journals, but that researchers are not strongly affected in their ability to cite Elsevier articles, implying that researchers use other methods to access scientific literature.Im Jahr 2014 gründete ein Zusammenschluss deutscher Forschungsorganisationen das Projekt DEAL, ein Projekt auf nationaler Ebene zur Aushandlung von Lizenzverträgen mit großen Wissenschaftsverlagen. Die Verhandlungen zwischen DEAL und Elsevier begannen 2016 und scheiterten 2018 ohne eine erfolgreiche Einigung; in dieser Zeit kündigten rund 200 deutsche Forschungseinrichtungen ihre Lizenzverträge mit Elsevier, was Elsevier dazu veranlasste, den Zeitschriftenzugang für diese Einrichtungen zu beschränken. Die Autor*innen untersuchten die Auswirkungen auf das Publikations- und Zitierverhalten von Forschenden aus bibliometrischer Sicht anhand eines Datensatzes von ∼400.000 Artikeln, die von Forschenden an DEAL-Einrichtungen zwischen 2012-2020 veröffentlicht wurden

Gender differences in the research productivity of natural and social scientists

The authors of the study present bibliometric research of WoS-indexed productivity from 1996 to 2005 of all Croatian natural and social scientists who hold a doctorate. Gender differences are significant in the natural sciences, as opposed to the social sciences (which show much smaller WoS production and visibility). When a minimal set of productivity predictors was used, there was no significant impact of gender on publications and citations in the social sciences, and a significant but small impact in the natural fields. In the latter area, the influence of gender disappears when the number of publications is added to the predictors of citations. Consequently, women’ s publications, whether in the natural or the social sciences, do not have lesser international visibility than men’ s, which - in line with some other studies – indicates women’ s scientific achievement since they, according to numerous empirical studies, do not have the same professional advantages as men

Social capital and the Creation of Knowledge

This paper examines the relationship between the social capital and knowledge creation in research, mostly in the context of universities. The analysis is developed considering all of the following critical aspects of social capital: direct ties, strengths of direct ties, density, structural holes, centrality, and external-internal index in terms of fields of knowledge. Two important results arise from this research. First, the overall results suggest that, when controlling for other network variables and individual heterogeneity, the effects of the structural holes variable disappear. This result stands in contrast to the established idea that structural holes is the most important variable to represent social capital and, therefore, is seen as contributing to superior performance. Second, the results show that with this strong set of controls, what matters in social capital is having many direct ties, being in a central position, having partners from different areas of knowledge, and being part of a non dense network

The characteristics and impact of non-source items in the social sciences

Publikationen, die nicht in Web of Science bzw. Scopus indexiert sind, werden als sogenannte „non-source items“ bezeichnet. Bislang wurden sie in bibliometrischen Studien vernachlässigt. Das zentrale Anliegen dieser Studie ist die Untersuchung der Publikations- und Zitationscharakteristika von Dokumenten in den Sozialwissenschaften unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von non-source items, unabhängig vom jeweiligen Dokumenttyp. Indem die Publikationen zweier führender deutscher politikwissenschaftlicher Universitätsinstitute ausgewertet werden, werden die Auswirkungen der Berücksichtigung von non-source items in bibliometrischen Evaluationen in den Sozialwissenschaften untersucht und die folgenden drei Forschungsfragen beantwortet: FF1: Was sind die Charakteristika von Publikationen in den Politikwissenschaften? FF2: Was sind Charakteristika von non-source-items und wie ist deren Impact in der Politikwissenschaft? FF3: Wie können non-source items in bibliometrische Evaluation eingeschlossen werden? Kurz gefasst lässt sich festhalten, dass non-source items in bibliometrischen Evaluationen berücksichtigt werden sollten, unabhängig von ihrem Impact oder ihrer Zitationen. Eine umfassendere Zitationsdatenbank ist notwendig, um qualitativ hochwertige Evaluationen in den Sozialwissenschaften zu ermöglichen. Die Autorin schlägt verschiedene Möglichkeiten vor, den Impact von non-source items in der Politikwissenschaft zu untersuchen und macht einen Vorschlag zur alternativen Evaluation basierend auf Publikations- und Zitationsmustern. Die Strukturen der hier erörterten Formel, Datenbank und des Evaluationssystems können gleichermaßen in anderen sozialwissenschaftlichen Disziplinen angewendet werden. Allerdings sind weitere empirische Untersuchungen in anderen Disziplinen notwendig, um die entsprechenden Faktoren und Werte bestimmen zu können, da die Disziplinen stark heterogen sind.Publications that are not indexed by Web of Science or Scopus are named “non-source items”. These have so far been neglected by most bibliometric analyses. The central issue of this study is to investigate the publication and citation characteristics of items in the social sciences with special attention to non-source items of all document types. By analyzing the publications of two top-ranking political science university departments in Germany, this study explores the effect of the inclusion of non-source items in bibliometric evaluations in the social sciences, and answers the following three research questions: RQ1: What are the characteristics of publications in political science? RQ2: What are the characteristics and impact of non-source items in political science? RQ3: How to include non-source items into bibliometric evaluation in political science? In short, the results of this study show that non-source items should be included in bibliometric evaluations, regardless of their impact or the citations from them. The demand for a more comprehensive coverage of bibliometric databases in the social sciences for a higher quality of evaluations is shown. The author proposes several approaches to investigate the impact of non-source items in political science and suggests an alternative to evaluate German political scientists according to their publication and citation patterns. The empirical findings of this study can serve as valuable information to investigators of the social sciences. However, further empirical studies in different fields are needed, due to the significant heterogeneity among fields in the social sciences

A Recipe for Successful Collaboration: Shared Creative Work Experiences (SCrWE) Among Co-Researchers

In this article, we discuss our home cooking school as one example of a strategy we call "Shared Creative Work Experience" (SCrWE, pronounced "screwy"): Planned, playful extra-research activity during which collaborators engage in and reflect on creative work (e.g., cooking, sewing, painting, building, writing, performing, designing, gardening) that yields a product of some sort (e.g., a meal, a quilt, a painting, a shelf, a poem, a play, a game, a communal garden). Through SCrWE, we argue, collaborators playfully but deliberately create disequilibrium, shift perspectives, and unsettle power dynamics, ultimately preparing for productive, meaningful research partnerships. By creating a space for co-researchers to experience shared creative work, we aim to disrupt taken-for-granted assumptions and invite co-researchers to embrace ambiguity together. Grounded conceptually in aesthetic experiential play and the notion of the social imagination, SCrWE helps research teams identify potential sources of substantive, procedural, and affective conflict and then explore these conflicts in productive ways. Using techniques of collaborative autoethnography, we weave together recipes, photos, and scholarly writing to illuminate our experiences. We conclude by describing the steps for developing a SCrWE and include reflective questions to help research team members uncover their ontological, epistemological, and axiological commitments, ultimately leading to more meaningful research partnerships.In diesem Artikel stellen wir unsere Kochschule als Beispiel für eine Strategie vor, die wir "Shared Creative Work Experience" (SCrWE, ausgesprochen "screwy") nennen: geplante, spielerische Aktivitäten außerhalb der Forschung, bei denen die Teilnehmer*innen kreative Arbeit (z.B. Kochen, Nähen, Malen, Bauen, Schreiben, Darstellen, Gestalten, Gärtnern) verrichten und darüber reflektieren, die zu einem Produkt führt (z.B. einer Mahlzeit, einem Quilt, einem Gemälde, einem Regal, einem Gedicht, einem Theaterstück, einem Spiel, einem Gemeinschaftsgarten). Durch SCrWE schaffen die Beteiligten spielerisch, aber absichtlich ein Ungleichgewicht, verschieben die Perspektiven und bringen die Machtdynamik ins Wanken, was letztlich eine produktive, sinnvolle Forschungspartnerschaft vorbereitet. Mittels eines Raums, in dem Forscher*innen gemeinsam kreativ arbeiten können, wollen wir gewohnte Annahmen durchbrechen und dazu einladen, sich gemeinsam auf Mehrdeutigkeit einzulassen. SCrWE basiert konzeptionell auf dem ästhetischen Erfahrungsspiel und dem Konzept der sozialen Vorstellungskraft und hilft Forschungsteams dabei, potenzielle Quellen für inhaltliche, prozessuale und affektive Konflikte zu identifizieren und diese dann auf produktive Weise zu erkunden. Mithilfe der Techniken der kollaborativen Autoethnografie verweben wir Rezepte, Fotos und wissenschaftliche Texte, um unsere Erfahrungen zu beleuchten. Abschließend beschreiben wir die Schritte zur Entwicklung eines SCrWE und stellen Reflexionsfragen, die den Mitgliedern von Forschungsteams helfen sollen, ihre ontologischen, epistemologischen und axiologischen Verpflichtungen zu erkennen, was letztlich zu sinnvollerem Zusammenarbeiten führt

A firm’s creation of proprietary knowledge linked to the knowledge spilled over from its research publications: the case of artificial intelligence

This study investigates the mechanism by which knowledge spilled over from a firm’s research publication consequently spills into the focal firm as a form of proprietary knowledge when it is engaged in an emerging science-related technology. We define the knowledge spillover pool (KSP) as an evolving group of papers citing a paper published by a firm. Focusing on the recent development of artificial intelligence, on which firms have published actively, we compare the KSP conditions related to the increase in patents created by the focal firm with those created by external actors. Using a Cox regression and subsequent contrast test, we find that both an increasing KSP and an increasing similarity between the idea published by the focal firm and KSP are positively related to the proprietary knowledge creation of both the focal firm and external actors, with such relations being significantly stronger for the focal firm than for external actors. On the contrary, an increasing proportion of industry papers in the KSP are positively associated with the proprietary knowledge creation not only by the focal firm but also by external actors to a similar degree. We contribute to the literature on selective revealing and to the firms’ publishing strategies

Impact of Funding on Scientific Output and Collaboration

This dissertation reports the results of a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the inter-relations among research funding, scientific output, and collaboration. The research employed various methods and methodologies (i.e. data and text mining, statistical analysis, social network analysis, bibliometrics, survey data analysis, and visualization techniques) to investigate the impact of influencing factors on researchers’ performance, their amount of funding, and collaboration patterns. Moreover, a machine learning framework was suggested and validated for scientific evaluation of the researchers based on their productivity and level of funding. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) was selected as the source of funding in this research since it is the main federal funding organization in Canada and almost all the Canadian researchers in natural sciences and engineering receive at least a basic research grant from NSERC. The required data on the scientific publications (e.g. co-authors, their affiliations, year of publication) was collected from Elsevier’s Scopus. SCImago was selected for collecting the impact factor information of the journals in which the articles were published in as well as the annual citation counts of publications. The data was gathered and integrated for the time span of 1996 to 2010. The most significant contributions are: 1) the unique data extraction and gathering procedure that enhanced the accuracy of the target data, 2) the comprehensive triangulation technique which was employed in this research that included various methodologies and used new variables for assessing the inter-relations, 3) the proposed machine learning framework for classifying researchers and predicting their productivity and level of funding

Policy for a Singular Neurodevelopmental Disorder: A Multiple Streams Analysis of the Combating Autism Act of 2006 Using Kingdon’s Framework

The Combating Autism Act of 2006 (CAA) is a single-disorder law for the population with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), one of six neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). All NDDs have common origins, overlapping symptoms, and lifelong adverse individual and societal impacts. Yet, no analogous policy exists for the other NDDs. The inequity between related disorders is a curiosity, and moreover, it results in health and economic inequities with devastating consequences. This analysis examines the conditions that led to the CAA, which has been reauthorized three times since 2006 and is now known as the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education, and Support (CARES) Act. Understanding how we arrived at this landmark legislation serves to inform future reauthorizations and elicit consideration of CARES equity for people experiencing all NDDs.https://dune.une.edu/ph_ile/1004/thumbnail.jp