Investigating the interplay between fundamentals of national research systems: performance, investments and international collaborations

We discuss, at the macro-level of nations, the contribution of research funding and rate of international collaboration to research performance, with important implications for the science of science policy. In particular, we cross-correlate suitable measures of these quantities with a scientometric-based assessment of scientific success, studying both the average performance of nations and their temporal dynamics in the space defined by these variables during the last decade. We find significant differences among nations in terms of efficiency in turning (financial) input into bibliometrically measurable output, and we confirm that growth of international collaboration positively correlate with scientific success, with significant benefits brought by EU integration policies. Various geo-cultural clusters of nations naturally emerge from our analysis. We critically discuss the possible factors that potentially determine the observed patterns

A Science of Science and Innovation Policy Research Agenda

Dr. John Marburger’s recent calls for a new science of science policy open up new opportunities to reconceptualize, retest, and revise as needed the theories, models, descriptions, and mainstream propositions underlying United States’ science and innovation policies and programs. We respond to these calls by presenting a research agenda directed at two objectives. First, as academic researchers who have long worked in the field of science and innovation policy, albeit from different analytical and disciplinary perspectives, we seek to insure that efforts to promote the "science" of science and technology, or innovation policy produce substantive scholarly work that in fact advances our fundamental understanding of underlying processes. Second, as participants in numerous U.S. and international science and innovation policy advisory forums and commissions, we seek to promote a closer, better fitting, coupling between the research communities who are addressing questions of the science of science policy -- themselves a disparate disciplinary lot -- with the policy communities who are seeking improved understandings of whether or how the decisions they have made or are being called upon to make in fact have led to the intended results. Our strategy to achieve these two objectives is to identify questions that are simultaneously intellectually challenging and policy relevant

Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers

Scientists are frequently faced with the important decision to start or terminate a creative partnership. This process can be influenced by strategic motivations, as early career researchers are pursuers, whereas senior researchers are typically attractors, of new collaborative opportunities. Focusing on the longitudinal aspects of scientific collaboration, we analyzed 473 collaboration profiles using an ego-centric perspective which accounts for researcher-specific characteristics and provides insight into a range of topics, from career achievement and sustainability to team dynamics and efficiency. From more than 166,000 collaboration records, we quantify the frequency distributions of collaboration duration and tie-strength, showing that collaboration networks are dominated by weak ties characterized by high turnover rates. We use analytic extreme-value thresholds to identify a new class of indispensable `super ties', the strongest of which commonly exhibit >50% publication overlap with the central scientist. The prevalence of super ties suggests that they arise from career strategies based upon cost, risk, and reward sharing and complementary skill matching. We then use a combination of descriptive and panel regression methods to compare the subset of publications coauthored with a super tie to the subset without one, controlling for pertinent features such as career age, prestige, team size, and prior group experience. We find that super ties contribute to above-average productivity and a 17% citation increase per publication, thus identifying these partnerships - the analog of life partners - as a major factor in science career development.Comment: 13 pages, 5 figures, 1 Tabl

Social impacts of the development of science, technology and innovation indicators

This paper examines the social impacts of the development of science, technology and innovation indicators. The approach deals separately with the development process and with the use of the indicators that result. Underlying the discussion is an assumption that indicators are a technology, a product, which governs behaviour, is modified by users (outside of the producer community), and develops in response to user needs. Science and technology indicators are considered separately from innovation indicators, and the importance of language based on codified and tacit knowledge is emphasized. The knowledge is codified in manuals, and the tacit knowledge is held in overlapping communities of practice that develop the manuals, gather the data, produce the indicators and use them. Finally, there is a discussion of how this process changes and renews itself.Economic impacts, social impacts, innovation indicators, science and technology indicators, indicators, social constructs, knowledge

科学技術イノベーション政策における資源配分データベースの構築

科学技術イノベーションに関する政策立案や政策研究に資するために、科学技術イノベーションにおける「政策のための科学」のためのデータ・情報基盤の一部として、行政機関等が保有する科学技術関係経費に関する情報を活用し、科学技術イノベーション政策における資源配分データベースを作成した。As part of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology\u27s project to promote the "Science of Science Policy”, NISTEP constructed a detabse of resource allocations in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, in order to contribute to policy-making and policy studies for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy

The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. The review was chaired by Professor James Wilsdon, supported by an independent and multidisciplinary group of experts in scientometrics, research funding, research policy, publishing, university management and administration. This review has gone beyond earlier studies to take a deeper look at potential uses and limitations of research metrics and indicators. It has explored the use of metrics across different disciplines, and assessed their potential contribution to the development of research excellence and impact. It has analysed their role in processes of research assessment, including the next cycle of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). It has considered the changing ways in which universities are using quantitative indicators in their management systems, and the growing power of league tables and rankings. And it has considered the negative or unintended effects of metrics on various aspects of research culture. The report starts by tracing the history of metrics in research management and assessment, in the UK and internationally. It looks at the applicability of metrics within different research cultures, compares the peer review system with metric-based alternatives, and considers what balance might be struck between the two. It charts the development of research management systems within institutions, and examines the effects of the growing use of quantitative indicators on different aspects of research culture, including performance management, equality, diversity, interdisciplinarity, and the ‘gaming’ of assessment systems. The review looks at how different funders are using quantitative indicators, and considers their potential role in research and innovation policy. Finally, it examines the role that metrics played in REF2014, and outlines scenarios for their contribution to future exercises