From conference abstract to publication in the conservation science literature

Every two years, the conservation community comes together at The Society for Conservation Biology's International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB) to share new developments in conservation science and practice. Publication of content presented at conferences in scientific journals adds to a permanent record and helps increase its potential impact. However, quantitative research on publication rates for meetings relevant to conservation is lacking. We provide a data-driven exploration of the presentations at the 25th ICCB held in Auckland, New Zealand in 2011. To study publication rates and presenter demographics, we recorded titles, number of authors, presenter affiliations, gender, country of study region, publication status, and the elapsed time between presentation and publication. Of the 980 contributions (782 talks and 198 posters), 587 (60%) became publications. We found a mean time to publication of 13.7 months for all published abstracts, and 21.3 months when excluding abstracts published before the meeting. The gender breakdown of presenters was almost even (53% male, 47% female), but the representation of the countries where the presenting authors were based at was biased. The political units with the most contributions were by far the USA, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Presenters based in English-speaking countries made up 74% of the total sample, but this did not influence the likelihood of their abstract becoming a publication. Understanding the presentation to publication process in conservation is useful to identify biases and potential challenges that need to be addressed to make conference communications permanent and increase their reach beyond those in attendance

Implementation of Strategic Management Based on the Balanced Scorecard in a University Library

The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of implementing strategic management as a process based on balanced scorecard (BSC) in the university library – G. Denysenko Scientific and Technical Library of the National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute” (KPI Library). The author is regarding the features of all the strategic management implementation stages: strategic analysis, formulation of strategic ideas (vision, values and mission), the strategy definition and development, strategy implementation and realization, assessment and control of the strategy implementation. Special attention is focused on the comparison of the BSC model, which was used in KPI Library with classical BSC models for non-profit organizations developed by Robert Kaplan and David Norton, and Paul Niven. The author is also focusing on preparation of the strategic map and identifying specific indicators. BSC is adaptive, flexible and adjusts to the environment of each particular library and can be used as an effective tool for the development of a strategic management system in libraries. The case study of the library of Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute shows that a BSC is an effective tool for building a system of strategic management development aimed at radical organizational changes in the library. It is also a testing and practical implementation of some of the results of the study “Strategic Management of Library as a Process-Oriented Organization Based on a BSC,” which is conducted by the author

Implementation of Strategic Management Based on the Balanced Scorecard in a University Library

The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of implementing strategic management as a process based on balanced scorecard (BSC) in the university library – G. Denysenko Scientific and Technical Library of the National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute” (KPI Library). The author is regarding the features of all the strategic management implementation stages: strategic analysis, formulation of strategic ideas (vision, values and mission), the strategy definition and development, strategy implementation and realization, assessment and control of the strategy implementation. Special attention is focused on the comparison of the BSC model, which was used in KPI Library with classical BSC models for non-profit organizations developed by Robert Kaplan and David Norton, and Paul Niven. The author is also focusing on preparation of the strategic map and identifying specific indicators. BSC is adaptive, flexible and adjusts to the environment of each particular library and can be used as an effective tool for the development of a strategic management system in libraries. The case study of the library of Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute shows that a BSC is an effective tool for building a system of strategic management development aimed at radical organizational changes in the library. It is also a testing and practical implementation of some of the results of the study “Strategic Management of Library as a Process-Oriented Organization Based on a BSC,” which is conducted by the author

Evaluation of Hybrid Learning in the University: A Case Study Approach

Hybrid learning is a type of educational system in which some students attend class in person while others engage virtually from home. Hybrid learning has been applied in all educational institutions since the pandemic. BINUS University used a Learning Management System called Binusmaya to support teaching and learning activities for both hybrid and fully online learning. The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of hybrid learning at BINUS University based on student performance academically and non-academically. It focuses on students from the 2019–2020 academic year. The survey obtained 200 replies using a quantitative technique and a Google form as the media questionnaire. Previous research has shown that hybrid learning provides effective results in terms of academic achievement. Compared to this study, few criteria are used to measure the effectiveness of hybrid learning, such as environment, knowledge, and skills. In addition, we have added the comparison between hybrid learning and the full online method at BINUS University. The results indicate that hybrid learning is ineffective compared to fully online learning. Furthermore, hybrid students were dissatisfied with their overall results, and students pursuing full-time online courses outperformed hybrid students. This study also provides some approaches to increasing the effectiveness of hybrid learning at BINUS University. Doi: 10.28991/HIJ-2022-03-04-03 Full Text: PD

Themes in Health Sciences Librarianship Literature, 2016-2020: A Keyword and Subject Analysis

Previous investigations into trends in Library and Information Science (LIS) literature have revealed changes in the topics librarians publish on over time, with older studies highlighting classification and indexing, and information retrieval and more recent studies highlighting keywords such as internet, information technology, digital libraries, and again, information retrieval. No similar investigation has been conducted on current publication trends by health sciences librarians. This study analyzes the top themes on which health sciences librarians published from 2016 to 2020 by examining the frequency of keywords. Keywords and subject headings were analyzed from The Journal of the Medical Library Association, Medical References Services Quarterly, The Journal of Hospital Librarianship, and The Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries. A total of 8,806 keywords were downloaded for analysis and organized into 292 categories during taxonomy creation. The ten most frequent themes were: libraries, information, education, humans, demography, librarian, geographical locations, research, electronic resources, and technology. The study also found that data, psychiatry and psychology, informatics, and publishing were other key themes, indicating that health sciences librarians are publishing on a wide range of topics. Some keywords that appeared only once, such as telecommuting and flexible staffing, suggest emerging areas of research for librarians

Modern Problems of Scientometric Assessment of Publication Activity

As is known, an objective assessment of scientific activity is one of the most difficult problems, in terms of the relationship within itself as well as with society. However, for many decades, the significance of scientists’ contribution to the development of the corresponding branch of science was assessed by the scientific community only by meaningful qualitative criteria, wherein the principle and mechanism of such an assessment was actually intuitive and defied quantitative description. That is why the urgent task was undertaken to create a system for evaluating scientific activity based on some objective indicators of the activity of a particular scientist; in search of such criteria, in the 1970s–1980s, the term “citation index” appeared. Although a close examination of this indicator revealed its limitations and in a number of cases even inadequacy in assessing scientific activity, it has nevertheless since the 1990s gained very wide popularity in the scientific community. This has contributed to the emergence of numerous works aimed at finding new and ideal indicators for assessing publication activity (so-called bibliometric indices). To date, several dozen such indices have been proposed, the most significant of which was the so-called Hirsch index or h-index. Nevertheless, despite the incredibly significant advances in this specific area of sociology, the above problem is still far from resolved. In this regard, the key task of this Special Issue is to familiarize its readers with the latest achievements both in the search for new, more advanced bibliometric indicators and in the improvement of existing ones

The distributed organization of science : with empirical illustrations from the field of diabetes medicine

The premise of this thesis holds that the organization of science is distributed in nature. That is, science takes place all over the world and within different spheres of society. Within the literature, the distributed organization of science is characterized in different ways. While some focus primarily on the substantive aspects of science such as the increasing importance of interdisciplinarity, others emphasize processes of de-institutionalization as seen in the cooperation between companies, universities and government agencies. Other contributions combine several aspects of science and as such for example speak of both the social and intellectual organization of science. More in general, then, the distributed organization of science can be characterized along different dimensions. The aim of this thesis is to provide insight into the nature and consequences of a distributed organization of science. We take the distinction between Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production as a starting point to describe the distributed organization of science. Mode 1 knowledge production conforms in many respects to the traditional image of scientific knowledge production that takes place primarily within the university; under Mode 1 knowledge production science takes place within strongly defined disciplines and focuses on the fundamental comprehension of natural and social phenomena. In contrast, the idea of Mode 2 knowledge production is characterized by its heterogeneity along all dimensions. That is, besides universities, actors from industry and government are also involved in science; science takes place across disciplines rather than within disciplines only; and under Mode 2 knowledge production science involves not only a quest for fundamental laws and regularities, but has a clear public interest. Despite, or perhaps because of its rich description of science, the distinction between Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production is much criticized. This criticism can be summarized in terms of three main points. First, the notion of Mode 2 knowledge production is conceptually vague. For example, it is unclear what exactly is meant by the notion of transdisciplinarity. Second, the empirical validity of claims on the emergence, prevalence, and persistence of Mode 2 knowledge production is debatable. Although at the project level there is evidence on an increase in the diversity of actors involved in science, it is unclear to what extent this also holds at the level of science systems at large. Finally, it is unclear to what extent Mode 2 knowledge production should be interpreted as a positive phenomenon in a normative sense. The normative implications of the idea of Mode 2 knowledge production have at least two sides. On the one hand the question arises to what extent and how diversity in the organization of distributed science indeed leads to more relevant knowledge. On the other hand, it could also be asked to what extent a development of science towards Mode 2 would prejudice the public interest of scientific knowledge. Within this thesis, the criticisms of the notion of Mode 2 knowledge production are picked up. As such, this thesis addresses (i) an analytical approach to the notion of Mode 2 knowledge production, (ii) the empirical validity of the notion of Mode 2 knowledge production, (iii) the establishment of relevance in a distributed organization of science, and (iv) the normative implications of Mode 2 knowledge production. To strengthen our arguments empirically, we use the case of diabetes medicine. Diabetes medicine is an interesting case for at least three reasons. First, diabetes is a socially relevant problem in the sense that a large group of people around the world are faced with this disease. Consequently, research on diabetes is also widespread. Second, diabetes constitutes a complex disease involving interacting factors such as genetics, lifestyle, and the environment. However, not only are the aspects involved in the constitution of this disease varied, as a consequence so are the people and organizations occupying themselves with finding solutions to this problem. What medical professionals call translational medicine seems to be especially accurate for diabetes, that is, as a description of medical science that concerns itself with diabetes duly takes into account the whole process from the laboratory bench to the patient bedside involving different actors. As such, the nature of diabetes as a scientific problem is immediately enmeshed with societal undertones whose provision of solutions is expected to be organized along various modes. Hence, we expect the organization of diabetes medicine to be characterized by Mode 2 rather than Mode 1 knowledge production. The patterns of a distributed organization of science are addressed empirically using bibliometric data. The choice for a quantitative approach in our empirical research is pragmatic; bibliometrics allows me to address the science system on a large (i.e. global) scale. More fundamentally, we take the scientific publication as a useful starting point to assess science. Here we make a distinction between research and science. Whereas research is about local knowledge production practices, science is first and foremost about the transformation of knowledge towards universal acceptance. As such, the scientific publication is taken as a first and necessary step towards the certification of knowledge as scientific. It follows that the organizational aspects of science that are displayed on the scientific publication such as authorships, affiliations and references provide an input to investigate the patterns underlying the distributed organization of science. Chapter 1 provides a first outline of an analytical approach to Mode 2 knowledge production. To substantiate the notion of Mode 2 knowledge production analytically we distinguish and define five forms of heterogeneity. First, institutional heterogeneity refers to the different value orientations and norms the different actors involved in science adhere to. Second, organizational heterogeneity refers to the different organizations involved in science. Third, geographical heterogeneity refers to science taking place in different countries, regions and cities. Fourth, cognitive heterogeneity refers to the various disciplinary backgrounds of actors. Finally, social heterogeneity refers to the different communities in which actors are active. While some descriptions of science focus on only one dimension of heterogeneity in the distributed organization of science, the notion of Mode 2 knowledge production provides a description of science along all of these five dimensions. The great advantage of studying science along these five dimensions is that we can now analytically address the distributed organization of science along multiple dimensions simultaneously. Then, chapter 2 provides an overview of the recent empirical literature on the distributed organization of science. Of central concern here is the relationship between proximity on the one hand and impact and collaboration on the other hand. At the relational level, the concept of proximity is taken as the counterpart of the concept of heterogeneity. That is to say, where cooperation takes place between operators who are in close proximity to each other, the relationships between these actors are described as homogenous rather than heterogeneous. The main conclusion of this literature review holds that most studies that examine the role of proximity in collaborative science look only at a limited number of proximity dimensions. It follows that to gain a complete understanding of the distributed organization of science we need to include multiple proximity dimensions simultaneously. Chapter 3 forms the prelude to the study of collaboration patterns between organizations in chapter 4. To come to such an analysis, first the idea of 'the organization' is discussed in chapter 3. While in quantitative science studies the nature of the organization is assumed to be unproblematic, within discussions of Mode 2 knowledge production precisely the opposite is true. That is, within the notion of Mode 2 knowledge production, the boundaries between, say, the university and the commercial enterprise have faded. As such, the organization is not an unambiguous unit of analysis in quantitative science studies. However, this does not mean that the organization cannot be used to study science at a higher level of aggregation. Rather, in taking the organization as the basic unit of analysis in quantitative science studies choices must be made in conceptualizing the organization in the first place. These choices are not completely value-free, but must be viewed in light of the research in which the organization as the unit of analysis is used. On the basis of various organization theories, chapter 3 shows how the organization can be conceptualized along several dimensions. Given our conceptualization of the organization that we proposed in chapter 3, chapter 4 analyzes collaboration patterns between organizations. Whereas in the literature on Mode 2 knowledge production the diversity of backgrounds of scientific actors is taken to form no obstacle for collaboration to take place, within the literature on proximity and innovation emphasis is put on the role of proximity in facilitating collaborative innovation. The latter does not mean that proximity needs to play a role along all five dimensions. On the contrary, there may be substitution between different forms of proximity. As such, differences may exist among science systems in how various proximity dimensions shape collaboration between organizations therein. Chapter 4 examines (i) to what extent proximity in all five dimensions plays a role in scientific collaboration in the field of type 2 diabetes and (ii) to what extent the European science system differs from the North American system of science in terms of the comparative importance of the five proximity dimensions. Regarding the role of proximity in scientific collaboration, the main conclusion of this chapter holds that in general all proximity dimensions play their role in shaping collaboration between organizations. In particular, geographical proximity plays an important role in scientific collaboration which suggests that a regional or national focus in the study of science and innovation systems is legitimate. On the other hand, the focus on a "Triple Helix" of university-industry-government relations is no less legitimate because of the relative importance of this type of collaboration, both in North America and in Europe. Regarding the comparison between the European and North American science system, a difference is observed in the role of geographical, social and organizational proximity in shaping scientific collaboration. Where geographical proximity plays a larger role within the European science system, social and organizational proximity play a larger role within the North American science system. The relative importance of geographical proximity within the European science system can be traced to the greater differences in terms of language and culture in Europe. On the other hand the relative importance of organizational and social proximity in North America suggests a more hierarchical system there. It is notable that with regard to the role of institutional proximity the two science systems do not differ. In other words, the attention paid in policy discussions to a relative absence of relationships between academic and non-academic actors in Europe as compared to North America is not justified. The last three chapters of this thesis discuss the implications of a distributed organization of science. First, chapter 5 addresses the citation as a measure of scientific (Mode 1) impact. Within science studies the citation is a contested measure of scientific impact. While some take little issue in using citation indicators, others completely dispense with the use of citation analysis as a tool for scientific evaluation. In order to get out of this impasse we turn to information science studies (in particular, "information retrieval" studies), in which the concept of relevance is important. Parallel to the debate on citation theories, where a distinction is made between a Mertonian perspective on citation as value and a rhetorical perspective on citation as personal, within the information science literature a distinction is made between relevance as system-oriented and relevance as user-oriented. Recently, however, a third perspective on relevance emerged within the information retrieval literature. This socio-cognitive perspective on relevance connects the system approach to the user approach on relevance by paying explicit attention to the context in which relevance is established. On the basis of this socio-cognitive perspective on relevance, we develop a supplement to existing citation theories on the basis of the notion of social embeddedness. The most important conclusion is that, on the basis of the concept of social embeddedness, the two opposite perspectives on citation can be connected. In all we argue that, in the context of Mode 1 knowledge production, the establishment of scientific relevance is contingent upon the structure of social networks and the position of scientists therein. Chapter 6 addresses the role of heterogeneity in relation to the societal relevance (Mode 2 impact) of science. Again we use the case of science in the field of type 2 diabetes. As in Chapter 4, we operationalize the distributed organization of science through five forms of heterogeneity. However, instead of talking about the role of distance (proximity) in the distributed organization of science we speak of the impact that diversity (singularity) in the organization of science has on in its societal relevance. To assess societal relevance, we use the references listed in a clinical practice guideline. Two types of references are distinguished: (i) references that are included in the clinical practice guideline but not as evidence for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and (ii) references that are included in the medical manual and also reflect evidence for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. In comparing the organizational aspects related to the publications associated with these two types of references, we assess the determinants of societal relevance in medical science in the field of type 2 diabetes. The main conclusion holds that, controlling for the scientific relevance of publications, only geographical diversity increases the likelihood of societal relevance. In all it seems that heterogeneity in the distributed organization of science does not naturally lead to a greater chance of societally relevant knowledge. Interesting fact is that publications in which industry is involved have a greater chance of becoming societally relevant. This suggests that the influence of industry in the creation of societally relevant knowledge is large. Finally, chapter 7 elaborates further on the position of industry in medicine. We assess the publication behavior of firms in a context of complete information disclosure where firms face the choice of publishing study outcomes either in scientific publications or in web publications. Due to recent institutional reforms it is now mandated to register clinical trial protocols before onset and publish basic results after study completion. For a sample of clinical trials on diabetes, we link clinical trial protocols to result publications and classify those publications based on the type of evidence they disclose. The results indicate that under conditions of complete information disclosure, firms do indeed not publish less than not-for-profit organizations. However, firms strategically publish in scientific journals where they highlight favorable outcomes to their therapies and clinically relevant studies, since regulators value evidence published in peerreviewed journals much more than evidence published on web sites without peer-review. Thus, despite institutional reforms, pharmaceutical firms still find a way to strategically highlight particular pieces of evidence in scientific journals. We conclude that concerns about publication based on the nature of evidence have shifted rather than disappeared. The presented results in this chapter thus signal a problem of persistent publication bias of a more fundamental nature which is not easily solved by regulatory reform alone. The general conclusion of this thesis is threefold. First, the framework of proximity (distance) and diversity (uniformity) along five dimensions provides a useful analytical tool to address the distributed organization of science. Using this framework, two important critiques on the idea of Mode 2 knowledge production, namely its lacking conceptual clarity and empirical validity, can be tackled. Characterizing scientific actors and their relations along lines of geographical, social, cognitive, institutional, and organizational heterogeneity, renders a more distinct picture of the distributed organization of science. Second, the idea of Mode 2 knowledge production as conceptualized along five dimensions of heterogeneity takes different shapes depending on the level of aggregation. On the level of individual organizations we argue that since the boundaries of the organizations are inherently blurred, many organizations can in principle be characterized as Mode 2. Yet, our empirical analysis shows that on an aggregate level the science system as a whole is not likely to be characterized as Mode 2. Rather, proximity plays an important role in shaping collaboration among organizations. Third, the implications of heterogeneity or Mode 2-ness in the distributed organization of science are ambiguous. On the one hand, heterogeneity in the distributed organization of (medical) science does not render societal relevant knowledge more likely per se. We only find evidence of an increase in the likelihood of societal relevant outcomes under geographical diversity and not for the other four dimensions of heterogeneity. On the other hand, the involvement of industrial actors does render societal relevant knowledge more likely. However, the extent to which such involvement is desirable from a normative perspective is unclear. What holds is that pharmaceutical companies publish their study outcomes strategically. This study has two important implications for further research on the distributed organization of science. First, the framework of proximity and diversity along several dimensions provides an input for further research on the distributed organization of science. Not only can local science systems in this way be compared; in principle one can also compare different disciplinary systems in the same way. In addition, the dynamics of scientific collaboration can be addressed using social network analysis techniques. Second, the relationship between scientific and societal relevance warrants further research. Some exceptions aside, much of quantitative science studies focuses primarily on the development of scientific relevance leaving societal relevance often unaddressed. Ultimately, such data sets enable us to get a better description and explanation of the whole sequence from research via publication towards science becoming societally relevant. More in general, quantitative studies of science might bring together our understanding of knowledge production by not only taking into account journal publication data but also considering alternative data sets reflecting upon research and science’s societal relevance. Finally, with regard to science policy, the question holds what kind of heterogeneity should be targeted given the particular scientific and societal problems at stake. In addition, science policy makers should take into account the institutional requirements of a heterogeneous science system. Non-traditional scientific actors such as companies have interests that are not necessarily in line with the public provision of scientific knowledge. This does not mean that these actors by definition should be excluded from science. Rather, this raises the question whether the way that science is traditionally organized still adequately serves the general interest of public knowledge provision

The Effects of the Quantification of Faculty Productivity: Perspectives from the Design Science Research Community

In recent years, efforts to assess faculty research productivity have focused more on the measurable quantification of academic outcomes. For benchmarking academic performance, researchers have developed different ranking and rating lists that define so-called high-quality research. While many scholars in IS consider lists such as the Senior Scholar’s basket (SSB) to provide good guidance, others who belong to less-mainstream groups in the IS discipline could perceive these lists as constraining. Thus, we analyzed the perceived impact of the SSB on information systems (IS) academics working in design science research (DSR) and, in particular, how it has affected their research behavior. We found the DSR community felt a strong normative influence from the SSB. We conducted a content analysis of the SSB and found evidence that some of its journals have come to accept DSR more. We note the emergence of papers in the SSB that outline the role of theory in DSR and describe DSR methodologies, which indicates that the DSR community has rallied to describe what to expect from a DSR manuscript to the broader IS community and to guide the DSR community on how to organize papers for publication in the SSB

Examining Scholarly Influence: A Study in Hirsch Metrics and Social Network Analysis

This dissertation research is focused on how we, as researchers, ‘influence’ others researchers. In particular, I am concerned with the notion of what constitutes the ‘influence’ of a scholar and how ‘influence’ is conferred upon scholars. This research is concerned with the construct called ‘scholarly influence’. Scholarly influence is of interest because a clear “theory of scholarly influence” does not yet exist. Rather a number of surrogate measures or concepts that are variable are used to evaluate the value of one’s academic work. ‘Scholarly influence’ is broken down into ‘ideational influence’ or the influence that one has through publication and the uptake of the ideas presented in the publication, and ‘social influence’ or the influence that one has through working with other researchers. Finally through the use of the definition of ‘scholarly influence’ this dissertation tries to commence a definition of ‘quality’ in scholarly work