Scientometrics Profile of the Banasthali Vidyapith: A Deemed University of Rajasthan, India

The current investigation work utilized bibliometric and visualization techniques. Scopus bibliographic database sources used to retrieve data. Two thousand seven hundred sixty-four (2764) papers retrieved by applying the \u27Affiliation\u27 in Scopus\u27 simple search section. Biblioshiny (3.0), MS-Access, Excel, and VOS Viewer software used to analyze data and bibliometric indicator extraction employ to evaluate the research productivity of Banasthali University for a period of twenty-one years from 2000 to 2020. This data analysis leads to monitor the university\u27s past and present status to maps its future perspectives. This study ventured to examine the overall performance of the faculties and researchers of the Banasthali University in research productivity and publications. The study concerned on finding the year-wise distribution of the publications, author\u27s keywords ID, period, average citations per documents, top-ranked subjects, authors, most distinguished and productive author, author appearances, single-authored documents, multi-authored documents, top-ranked publications, co-authors per documents, co-authorship index, degree of collaboration based on the collected data and information gathered

Evaluation of Institutional Research Productivity

The quantification of scholarly performance has become an obvious necessity in many academic pursuits. Evaluation of research output is, therefore, an integral element of R&D institutions worldwide. This paper critically scrutinizes the literature on research productivity concerning scientific institutions (include universities and departments) in an informational context. It provides a thorough review to map the quantum of knowledge relating to ‘institutional research productivity’ correlating the Indian vista. The paper also offers a few recommendations to undertake evaluative studies with caution. Thus it shows a coherent picture of this emerging area in the sociology of science

History of science in Hungary: Stewardship and audience in periods of institutional and political change

The paper introduces the development of history of science in Hungary, focusing on the status of the field in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, universities, and scientific societies, and the “local” output in Hungarian. The genres associated with the field became popular in the early 20th century, and the institutional framework was created in the 1970s. After 1990, constructivist methodologies for studying localizable patterns of science-related activities spread, somewhat more pronounced in histories of the human sciences. A PhD school was established, and the discipline thrived until the early 2000s. Attempts were made to develop an historically informed integrated science curriculum, and to start a Masters program in History of Science. In recent years some of the key institutions of the discipline were closed down, and the visibility and relevance of the field decreased. Although the field has a relatively stable position in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS), with dwindling institutional resources "History of science" in Hungary will most likely become—yet again—an accessory of the special sciences

Examining how country-level science policy shapes publication patterns: The case of Poland

This work was supported by the DIALOG Programme [Grant name ‘Research into Excellence Patterns in Science and Art’].This country case study describes how science policy instruments are designed to shape publication patterns and identifies the changes in researchers’ productivity that can be observed over the period 2009–2016 in Poland by analysing data on 452,277 publications submitted to the country’s national research evaluation system. Our analysis reveals that policy instruments used in the country’s national research evaluation system, academic promotion procedures and competitive grants have increased the number of articles with an impact factor without compromising publication quality, as measured by a bibliometric indicator. Our findings highlight that only clear and stable incentives have influenced researchers’ publications. Therefore, patterns in scholarly book publications—for which regulations were not clear and stable—have not been significantly shaped by science policy

Three social science disciplines in Central and Eastern Europe: handbook on economics, political science and sociology (1989-2001)

Content: Ulrike Becker, Max Kaase, Gabor Klaniczay, and Vera Sparschuh: Social Sciences in Central and Eastern Europe on the Verge of EU Enlargement (7-10); Andrei Plesu: Financing Difference. Fostering the Social Sciences in the Field of Tension Between Homogenization and Differentiation (12-16); Elemer Henkiss: Brilliant Ideas or Brilliant Errors? (17-24); Janos Matyas Kovacs: Business as (Un)usual (26-33); Mitko Dimitrov: Bulgaria (34-49); Frantisek Turnovec: Czech Republic (50-64); Tiia Püss: Estonia (65-82); Laszlo Csaba: Hungary (83-101); Raita Karnite: Latvia (102-120); Linas Cekanavicius: Lithuania (121-134); Tadeusz Kowalik: Poland (135-151); Paul Dragos Aligica: Romania (152-167); Julius Horvath: Slovakia (168-186); Joze Mencinger: Slovenia (187-194); Hans-Jürgen Wagener: Demand and Supply of Economic Knowledge in Transition Countries (195-203); Hans-Dieter Klingemann: Political Science in Central and Eastern Europe: National Development and International Integration (206-212); Georgi Karasimeonov: Bulgaria (213-225); Jan Holzer and Pavel Pseja: Czech Republic (226-245); Raivo Vetik: Estonia (246-257); Mate Szabo: Hungary (258-274); Andris Runcis: Latvia (275-285); Algis Krupavicius: Lithuania (286-305); Stanislaw Gebethner and Radoslaw Markowski: Poland (306-321); Daniel Barbu: Romania (322-342); Darina Malova and Silvia Mihalikova: Slovakia (343-357); Danica Fink-Hafner: Slovenia (358-374); Pal Tamas: Followers or Activists? Social Scientists in the Reality Shows of Transformation (376-385); Nikolai Genov: Bulgaria (386-404); Michal Illner: Czech Republic (405-424); Mikk Titma: Estonia (425-436); Denes Nemedi and Peter Robert: Hungary (437-451); Aivars Tabuns: Latvia (452-466); Anele Vosyliute: Lithuania (467-483); Janusz Mucha and Pawel Zalecki: Poland (484-501); Maria Larionescu: Romania (502-517); Zuzana Kusa, Bohumil Buzik, Ludovit Turcan and Robert Klobucky: Slovakia (518-535); Frane Adam and Matej Makarovic: Slovenia (536-547); Piotr Sztompka: The Condition of Sociology in East-Central Europe (548-556); Mihaly Sarkany: Cultural and Social Anthropology in Central and Eastern Europe (558-566); Thomas Kucera and Olga Kucerova: Population science in Central and Eastern Europe: Implications for Research and Practice (567-577); Marie-Claude Maurel: Central European Geography and the Post-Socialist Transformation. A Western Point of View (578-587); Grazyna Skapska: Law and Society in a Natural Laboratory: the Case of Poland in the Broader Context of East-Central Europe (588-603)

A negyedik ipari forradalom vezetési aspektusai

A napjainkban zajló negyedik ipari forradalom jelentős kihívások elé állítja a gyártó, termelő vállalatokat nem csak technológiai, hanem szervezeti, menedzsment szempontból is. Az új technológiák alkalmazásával és a folyamatok átalakulásával jelentős változások várhatóak a munkavégzés területén, valamint a jövőbeni termelési rendszerek új kompetenciákat követelnek meg az alkalmazottaktól. Ezen kompetenciák fejlesztése, valamint a munkatársak hatékony képzése érdekében a vállalatoknak olyan innovatív, gyakorlati tanulási módszereket kell alkalmazniuk, amelyek valós munkahelyi feladatok megoldásán keresztül segítik a munkavállalókat a megváltozott környezethez való alkalmazkodásban. A belső tudásmenedzsment mellett továbbá kiemelendő a külső szereplőkkel folytatott együttműködés szükségessége, mind a vállalatra szabott Ipar 4.0 vízióalkotás, mind pedig a tanulási folyamatok során, amelynek eredményeképpen a felmerülő akadályok jelentős mértékben kezelhetővé válnak