Co-author weighting in bibliometric methodology and subfields of a scientific discipline

Collaborative work and co-authorship are fundamental to the advancement of modern science. However, it is not clear how collaboration should be measured in achievement-based metrics. Co-author weighted credit introduces distortions into the bibliometric description of a discipline. It puts great weight on collaboration - not based on the results of collaboration - but purely because of the existence of collaborations. In terms of publication and citation impact, it artificially favors some subdisciplines. In order to understand how credit is given in a co-author weighted system (like the NRC's method), we introduced credit spaces. We include a study of the discipline of physics to illustrate the method. Indicators are introduced to measure the proportion of a credit space awarded to a subfield or a set of authors.Comment: 11 pages, 1 figure, 4 table

Mechanisms in Dynamically Complex Systems

In recent debates mechanisms are often discussed in the context of ‘complex systems’ which are understood as having a complicated compositional structure. I want to draw the attention to another, radically different kind of complex system, in fact one that many scientists regard as the only genuine kind of complex system. Instead of being compositionally complex these systems rather exhibit highly non-trivial dynamical patterns on the basis of structurally simple arrangements of large numbers of non-linearly interacting constituents. The characteristic dynamical patterns in what I call “dynamically complex systems” arise from the interaction of the system’s parts largely irrespective of many properties of these parts. Dynamically complex systems can exhibit surprising statistical characteristics, the robustness of which calls for an explanation in terms of underlying generating mechanisms. However, I want to argue, dynamically complex systems are not sufficiently covered by the available conceptions of mechanisms. I will explore how the notion of a mechanism has to be modified to accommodate this case. Moreover, I will show under which conditions the widespread, if not inflationary talk about mechanisms in (dynamically) complex systems stretches the notion of mechanisms beyond its reasonable limits and is no longer legitimate

Social Network Analytics for Advanced Bibliometrics: Referring to Actor Roles of Management Journals instead of Journal Rankings

Impact factors are commonly used to assess journals relevance. This implies a simplified view on science as a single-stage linear process. Therefore, few top-tier journals are one-sidedly favored as outlets, such that submissions to top-tier journals explode whereas others are short of submissions. Consequently, the often claimed gap between research and practical application in application-oriented disciplines as business administration is not narrowing but becoming entrenched. A more complete view of the scientific system is needed to fully capture journals ´ contributions in the development of a discipline. Simple citation measures, as e.g. citation counts, are commonly used to evaluate scientific work. There are many known dangers of miss- or over-interpretation of such simple data and this paper adds to this discussion by developing an alternative way of interpreting a discipline based on the positions and roles of journals in their wider network. Specifically, we employ ideas from the network analytic approach. Relative positions allow the direct comparison between different fields. Similarly, the approach provides a better understanding of the diffusion process of knowledge as it differentiates positions in the knowledge creation process. We demonstrate how different modes of social capital create different patterns of action that require a multidimensional evaluation of scientific research. We explore different types of social capital and intertwined relational structures of actors to compare journals with different bibliometric profiles. Ultimately, we develop a multi-dimensional evaluation of actor roles based upon multiple indicators and we test this approach by classifying management journals based on their bibliometric environment

The evolution of knowledge within and across fields in modern physics

9 pages, 4 figuresThe exchange of knowledge across different areas and disciplines plays a key role in the process of knowledge creation, and can stimulate innovation and the emergence of new fields. We develop here a quantitative framework to extract significant dependencies among scientific disciplines and turn them into a time-varying network whose nodes are the different fields, while the weighted links represent the flow of knowledge from one field to another at a given period of time. Drawing on a comprehensive data set on scientific production in modern physics and on the patterns of citations between articles published in the various fields in the last 30 years, we are then able to map, over time, how the ideas developed in a given field in a certain time period have influenced later discoveries in the same field or in other fields. The analysis of knowledge flows internal to each field displays a remarkable variety of temporal behaviours, with some fields of physics showing to be more self-referential than others. The temporal networks of knowledge exchanges across fields reveal cases of one field continuously absorbing knowledge from another field in the entire observed period, pairs of fields mutually influencing each other, but also cases of evolution from absorbing to mutual or even to back-nurture behaviors

Governance by comparison: How ratings & rankings impact national policy-making in education

How can international comparisons have an impact on one country while others are not affected at all? This paper examines the power of ratings & rakings (R&R) using the example of the OECD's PISA study (Programme for International Student Assessment) and its differential impact on national education policy making. We argue that R&R have an impact if the evaluated topic is framed as crucial for national objectives and if, at the same time, a substantial gap between national self-perception and the empirical results can be observed. After assessing the media impact of PISA on 22 OECD countries, we illustrate our theoretical argument through the use of examples of two poorly performing countries who demonstrated entirely opposite reactions: Germany and the U.S. While the German system of secondary education was strongly affected by the international comparison and underwent comprehensive changes, the U.S. did not respond to its below-average ranking at all. The theoretical concepts of self-perception and framing offer explanatory power to delineate the different reaction patterns. -- Wie kommt es, dass internationale Vergleichsstudien bestimmte Staaten substantiell beeinflussen andere jedoch nicht? Am Beispiel der OECD PISA-Studie untersucht dieses Arbeitspapier den Einfluss von Rankings und Ratings (R&R) auf nationale Bildungspolitiken. Wir argumentieren, dass R&R besonders dann einen Einfluss entfalten, wenn der evaluierte Gegenstand zum einen als entscheidender Politikbereich verstanden wird und wenn gleichzeitig eine Diskrepanz zwischen nationaler Selbstwahrnehmung und empirisch erzieltem Ergebnis besteht. Nach Darstellung der Medienreaktionen in 22 OECD-Ländern wird unsere Argumentation am Beispiel von zwei gegensätzlich reagierenden Ländern illustriert: Deutschland und den USA. Während in Deutschland die negativen PISA-Ergebnisse zu einem umfassenden Bildungsdiskurs und zu massiven Bildungsreformen geführt haben, zeigten die USA keine öffentliche oder gar politische Reaktion auf ihre ebenfalls negativen Resultate.

The best of both worlds? : An exploratory study on forms and effects of new qualitative-quantitative scenario methodologies

This study analyzes new forms of combined and integrated scenario methodologies, which are used to construct exploratory socio-environmental scenarios. It makes conceptual and empirical contributions to futures studies and to inter- and transdisciplinary environmental and sustainability research. For 15 years, scenario approaches for the construction of socio-environmental scenarios have been established, which combine qualitative scenario methods with numerical modeling and simulation. They have become state of the art by replacing scenario approaches based on modeling alone. Combined scenario approaches are used to explore the future of socio-environmental systems scientifically, and to supply society and policy makers with the best possible information on possible alternative future developments in climate, biodiversity, land use, water, resources and energy, etc. Combined scenarios are characterized by a deep methodological and epistemological hybridity, as they combine approaches and perspectives from different realms. This makes their appeal but also raises enormous challenges. At the same time, literature on combined scenarios has thus far provided little conceptual orientation for the comparison, design, assessment and implementation of different forms of combined approaches. In practice, the so-called Story and Simulation (SAS) approach is dominant, coupling intuitive scenarios with simulation, and postulating an iterative refinement of both components. Against this background, this study explores new avenues: Cross-impact balance analysis (CIB), a systematic-formalized yet qualitative form of systems analysis, is combined with numerical modeling and simulation (CIB&S). As yet, this approach was explored neither empirically nor conceptually in a systematic way. Still, in energy and climate research, the expectation is formulated that this approach might balance the difficulties of combined scenario approaches of the SAS type, especially with regard to traceability and consistency. This study asks whether and how CIB can be combined with numerical modeling and simulation to support inter- and transdisciplinary research teams in constructing qualitative and quantitative or integrated exploratory scenarios of socio-environmental systems. It focuses on forms of the combination of CIB&S; on effects on traceability and consistency as well as on further (unintended) effects of the use of CIB within such combinations; and finally on factors influencing these effects. Combined scenario approaches are conceptualized in this study as inter- and transdisciplinary methodologies. Each application is characterized by an individual social, technical and data-related organization. Based on a review of the literature on combined scenario approaches, central dimensions to characterize forms of the combination of qualitative and quantitative scenario methods are developed. In addition, a model of the typical phases of a CIB&S process is designed. To assess effects, working definitions of scenario traceability and scenario consistency are proposed and operationalized. This conceptual framework structures the empirical analysis of two exploratory case studies. The first case studies a method demonstration for the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA). In this case, CIB is used to analyze societal framework assumptions of environmental models and to construct plausible sets of assumptions until the year 2030. The second case studies a full pioneer application of CIB&S in the context of a megacity project for the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). In the latter case, CIB is combined with a material flow simulator, to construct integrated scenarios on the possible water futures of Lima, Peru, until the year 2040. Both cases are qualitatively analyzed and interpreted, based on participant observation, interviews with process participants as well as process documents. The study shows that in different (ideal typical) forms of its combination with numerical modeling and simulation, CIB takes over different functions. The combined form, in turn, is mainly influenced by the position of both components within the process as well as by their degree of integration. CIB&S methodologies can successfully support scenario traceability, and contribute to both the internal consistency of the qualitative scenario component and the consistency between qualitative and quantitative scenario components. The stronger the degree of integration between CIB and simulation model, the stronger these effects. However, integration requires that the models underlying the scenarios, i.e. the conceptual CIB model as well as the numerical modeling and simulation, are made explicit and accessible, are compared with and, if applicable, adapted to each other. In addition, CIB&S approaches can create new checks and balances within combined scenario methodologies, when the definition of scenarios as well as the selection of scenario samples is assigned to the CIB and to the CIB participants. CIB&S approaches seem to be less suitable for the construction of explicitly normative or participatory scenarios. Instead, CIB&S approaches do support the participating experts in better analyzing, structuring and reflecting their knowledge, their assumptions and their ideas on possible future developments of socio-environmental systems. The external users of CIB&S-based scenarios can benefit from the improved accessibility of assumptions on uncertainty and complexity, which underlie the qualitative and quantitative or integrated scenarios, as these become criticizable in the first place. Overall, this study makes steps toward more conceptually grounded and more reflective research on the diversity of possible variants of combined and integrated scenario methodologies

Wassily Leontief and Léon Walras: the Production as a Circular Flow

Leontief’s input-output models are usually viewed as simplified classical (neo-Ricardian) models. However, this interpretation hides two opposed views. On the one hand, the common interpretation, based on Koopmans and Samuelson’s works, considers the so-called “models of Leontief” as simplified Ricardian models, in the sense of Samuelson, which are shown to be special cases of general equilibrium theory. In their framework, general equilibrium theory might be interpreted as a generalized model of Leontief and, reversely, models of Leontief are simplified Walrasian general equilibrium models. According to this theoretical tradition, classical theory and Walrasian general equilibrium theory are intimately linked and Classical economics is an “archaic” general equilibrium theory. On the other hand, neo-Ricardians view models of Leontief as simplified classical models that are incompatible with Walras’ general equilibrium theory. Our paper examines in details the last argument: the incompatibility argument. Such a work will require to examine in details the definition of vague categories as "Walrasian", "Classical" and so forth. We show that incompatibility between models of Leontief and Walras’ general equilibrium theory is ultimately based on Sraffa’s worldview: “The connection of [my] work with the theories of the old classical economists has been alluded to in the preface... It is of course in Quesnay’s Tableau Economique that is found the original picture of the system of production and consumption as a circular process, and it stands in striking contrast to the view presented by modern theory of a one-way avenue that leads from ‘Factors of production’ to ‘Consumption goods’.” (Sraffa, 1960) Neo-Ricardian’s opposition between classical economics and Walrasian theory is based on the representation of production: classical economics refers to circular flow while Marginalist theory refers to a one-way avenue production process. As it makes a sharp distinction between the two theoretical traditions, we call this criterion "Sraffa’s Guillotine". Based on Leontief’s PhD dissertation (1928) and his early input-output model (1937), the main result of our inquiry is that this criterion is powerless to distinguish Leontief’s representation of production as a circular flow and Walras one. Indeed, while Leontief based his models on Marx’ reproduction scheme, his representation of production is the same than Walras’ complete one, in striking contrast with neo-Ricardian critical apparatus. Hence we argue in favor of a pluralist interpretation of the models of Leontief: both Classical and Walrasians.Walras, Sraffa, Leontief, input-output analysis, Marx, production, non substitution theorem, general equilibrium theory