Does Size Matter? The Multipolar International Landscape of Nanoscience

How do different countries tackle nanoscience research? Are all countries similar except for a trivial size effect, as science is often assumed to be universal? Or does size dictate large differences, as large countries are able to develop activities in all directions of research, while small countries have to specialize in some specific niches? Alternatively, is size irrelevant, as all countries have followed different historical paths, leading to different patterns of specialisation? Here, we develop an original method that uses a bottom-up definition of scientific subfields to map the international structure of any scientific field. Our analysis shows that nanoscience research does not show a universal pattern of specialisation, homothetic of that of a single global leader (e.g., the United States). Instead, we find a multipolar world, with four main ways of doing nanosciences.Fil: Levin, Luciano Guillermo. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Humanas. Instituto de Estudios Sociohistóricos; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Jensen, Pablo. École normale supérieure de Lyon; FranciaFil: Kreimer, Pablo Rafael. Universidad Maimónides; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

Co-authorship networks in Swiss political research

Co-authorship is an important indicator of scientific collaboration. Co-authorship networks are composed of sub-communities, and researchers can gain visibility by connecting these insulated subgroups. This article presents a comprehensive co-authorship network analysis of Swiss political science. Three levels are addressed: disciplinary cohesion and structure at large, communities, and the integrative capacity of individual researchers. The results suggest that collaboration exists across geographical and language borders even though different regions focus on complementary publication strategies. The subfield of public policy and administration has the highest integrative capacity. Co-authorship is a function of several factors, most importantly being in the same subfield. At the individual level, the analysis identifies researchers who belong to the “inner circle” of Swiss political science and who link different communities. In contrast to previous research, the analysis is based on the full set of publications of all political researchers employed in Switzerland in 2013, including past publications

International visibility of nordic scientific research and patterns of international collaboration of nordic scientists

Literature-based data provide quantitative indicators of outcomes of scientific research. For decades, publications have been regarded as a useful indicator for assessing the productivity of scientific research, to be complemented with other information and peer judgments. The development of bibliographie information data bases has permitted the generation of indicators to measure further aspects of scientific research such as the impact of a given piece of work on the international research front and scientists' cooperation patterns. This paper presents some data which are obtainable for assessing productivity and international impact of Nordic scientific research and scientists' international collaboration; international collaboration has been measured by the volume of cross-country co-authorship. All data originate from the Science Citation Index (SCI)'

A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators

An increasing demand for bibliometric assessment of individuals has led to a growth of new bibliometric indicators as well as new variants or combinations of established ones. The aim of this review is to contribute with objective facts about the usefulness of bibliometric indicators of the effects of publication activity at the individual level. This paper reviews 108 indicators that can potentially be used to measure performance on the individual author level, and examines the complexity of their calculations in relation to what they are supposed to reflect and ease of end-user application.Comment: to be published in Scientometrics, 201

The prestige and status of research fields within mathematics

While the ``hierarchy of science'' has been widely analysed, there is no corresponding study of the status of subfields within a given scientific field. We use bibliometric data to show that subfields of mathematics have a different ``standing'' within the mathematics community. Highly ranked departments tend to specialize in some subfields more than in others, and the same subfields are also over-represented in the most selective mathematics journals or among recipients of top prizes. Moreover this status of subfields evolves markedly over the period of observation (1984--2016), with some subfields gaining and others losing in standing. The status of subfields is related to different publishing habits, but some of those differences are opposite to those observed when considering the hierarchy of scientific fields. We examine possible explanations for the ``status'' of different subfields. Some natural explanations -- availability of funding, importance of applications -- do not appear to function, suggesting that factors internal to the discipline are at work. We propose a different type of explanation, based on a notion of ``focus'' of a subfield, that might or might not be specific to mathematics.Comment: 28 pages,many graph

An empirical assessment of co-activity among German professors.

The growing importance of technology relevant non-publication output of university research has come into the focus of policy-makers' interest. A fierce debate arose on possible negative consequences of the increasing commercialization of science, as it may come along with a reduction in research performance. This paper investigates the relationship between publishing as a measure of scientific output and patenting for German professors active in a range of science fields. We combine bibliometric/technometric indicators and econometric techniques to show that patenting positively correlates with, first, the publication output and, second, with publication quality of patenting researchers.Academic inventors; Patents; Publications; Technology; Indicators; Quality;